Rwanda’s Role In Eastern Congo Atrocities – Secretary of State Replies

Democratic Republic of Congo

Question

11.06 am

Asked by

Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that mutineers in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo have received assistance from foreign military officials.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford):

My Lords, we have studied the United Nations Group of Experts report and believe it to be credible. We call on the countries named in the report to seek a sustainable resolution to the conflict, and one that breaks the cycle of violence.

Lord Chidgey:

I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that Presidents Kabila and Kagame have agreed that the 11-nation International Conference on the Great Lakes Region should work with the AU and the UN to establish a neutral force along the Rwanda-Congo border? Has President Kagame discussed with our Prime Minister which countries are offering to commit troops while Rwanda withdraws its support from the M23 rebels? Secondly, the Tutsi leader, Senator Mwangachuchu, claims that the M23 rebellion resulted from the ICC judgment against Thomas Lubanga and the indictment of Bosco Ntaganda for recruiting child soldiers and other crimes. Has the Prime Minister offered UK assistance, or has any other agency offered assistance in the pursuit and capture of Bosco Ntaganda?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

In answer to my noble friend’s questions, yes I am aware of the Great Lakes conference agreement by Presidents Kabila and Kagame and others that they should consider the idea of a border force, but it is still only at the thinking stage. Did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discuss this with President Kagame when he saw him a few weeks ago? The answer is no, because the propositions of the Great Lakes group had not come forward at that point. The Prime Minister expressed extreme concern at the Group of Experts report that Rwanda might be involved in backing the M23, but other developments have taken place since.

Has the ICC judgment against Thomas Lubanga created an atmosphere in which the M23 rebellion and breakaway from the Congolese army has taken place? I have to say that it may have played a part, but it is very hard to say. It may have been one of the reasons why Bosco Ntaganda and others retreated from their previous co-operation with the Congo army and have set up a mutineers’ group again. Have we offered, and has my right honourable friend offered, UK assistance in the pursuit and capture of Bosco, who is of course indicted by the ICC? No, because it is the responsibility of the DRC itself to co-operate fully with the ICC, and that is what we constantly urge.

Lord Boateng:

Given the importance of the African Union and South Africa and their good offices to the future of the DRC, would the Minister welcome the accession of the former Foreign Minister of South Africa, Mrs Dlamini-Zuma, to the leadership of the African Union? Her good offices are going to be absolutely crucial at this time if we are to bring peace and security to that area.

Lord Howell of Guildford:

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I certainly welcome that accession. The African Union is playing an increasingly positive part in facing up to the regional issues in the centre of Africa and at the centre of its concerns. We certainly welcome that. Obviously the African Union has played a key part in the International Conference on the Great Lakes, which was in the margins of the meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa the other day. It is a very good prospect that South Africa is playing a leading part, as the noble Lord describes.

Lord Alton of Liverpool:

My Lords, was the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, an acceptance that Rwanda has been aiding and abetting not only M23 but the other six rebel groups that have led to 1.4 million people being displaced in the Kivu in eastern Congo? That being the case, why are we not using the £344 million of aid which we are providing to Rwanda as leverage to persuade Rwanda not to aid and abet these insurgent groups, and to do rather more to bring to justice people such as Bosco Ntaganda, who has been responsible for the recruitment of child soldiers, which has led to the deaths of countless numbers of people—a haemorrhaging loss of life that dwarfs even the terrible and tragic events in Syria by comparison?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, no one questions the atrocities and misery of these various armies. I have counted five different armies and groups involved in killing and fighting each other in the region, and there is an extreme danger of this spreading and creating mayhem more widely on both humanitarian and security grounds. That is certainly the case.

As to our leverage, our aid programme is not quite as large as the sum mentioned by the noble Lord. I have a figure of £198 million a year to the DRC, and £83 million a year to Rwanda. Certainly our judgment is that, through that aid, we have the authority and the leverage to influence the situation. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda, Louise Mushikiwabo, about three weeks ago, as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Development and my honourable friend Mr Bellingham. We all impressed on her and her colleagues the necessity of facing up to the reality, and of Rwanda’s activity, as reported in the Group of Experts, to cease and to make way for a proper solution to the conflict. We are using our leverage and influence in a very nasty situation, but the way we do it obviously varies from country to country.

The Archbishop of Canterbury:

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to ask a question in this particular context, because I think the plight of the Congo is well known to everyone in this House. The issue of regional co-operation has already been flagged indirectly in what has been said. One of the questions I would like to ask is to do with what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to foster a broader regional strategic engagement involving more than simply the Governments of Rwanda and Congo. As part of that regional question, I am very concerned about a cross-border issue in the region: the plight of the indigenous peoples and indigenous minorities such as the Batwa. Twelve months ago I met the Batwa community in Congo and was dismayed to find what little attention some local authorities, especially by the United Nations, give to their plight. Are the Government aware of this?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

I am very grateful to the most reverend Primate for his question about the regional aspects, which are vital. May I answer him in this way? First, my honourable friend Mr Bellingham, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary concerned with African matters, was at the African Union conference last week and talked to regional leaders in detail all the time. Secondly, we have been promoting the idea of regional dialogue between the countries concerned. Thirdly, we are the third largest humanitarian donor trying to grapple with the situation. Fourthly, there is the matter, which my noble friend raised, of the Great Lakes group and its movement towards the idea of detailed regional co-operation and the involvement of all the key players in the region in solving this problem themselves. The regional aspect is very important, and I fully agree with the most reverend Primate that this is what we should concentrate on.

As to the cross-border issue, which was his other question—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Howell of Guildford:

I have been asked many questions, which produces many answers. The cross-border issue is very serious and we are looking at it very closely.

Baroness King of Bow:

My Lords—

Lord Avebury:

My Lords—

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde):

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady King, has been trying very hard to get in.

Baroness King of Bow:

My Lords, I have visited the Great Lakes region on 10 occasions over a decade and I have never ceased to be amazed by the resilience and dignity of the local populations and the barbarity and scale of the atrocities visited on them, such as a nine month-old baby who was raped with a military-issue rifle and who then sustained terrible gunshot wounds. Does the Minister agree that we need to hold Rwanda to account, and that we should also hold the Congolese army to account? Could he press for more military tribunals so that we can play our role in ensuring that innocent victims such as that nine month-old baby girl get the justice they deserve?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

Yes. Obviously we encourage the bringing to account of the very evil people who are committing these atrocities; there is no question at all about that. Bosco Ntaganda has been indicted by the ICC, and Rwanda has its own tribunal and court for assessing the horrors of the past. In all other aspects of bringing those involved to account, we will certainly press as hard as we can in the ways I have described in detail to your Lordships over the past five minutes.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Universe Column

David Alton

August 5th 2012

According to the International Rescue Committee, since 1998 almost five and a half million people have died from war-related causes in the Congo (the DRC). Many have died violently but even more have died from diseases which have attacked displaced people left without sanitation, homes or food. The IRC say that up to 45,000 people continue to die every month. Although this makes the Congo the world’s deadliest conflict since the Second World War, it rarely makes our TV screens or news reports. ‪

The scandalous conflict in the Congo and the haemorrhaging loss of life – often driven by power hungry militias and the pillaging of the country’s natural resources –  dwarfs even the barbarism in Syria. It  exposes the West to two things – the accusation that it considers a life in Africa to be worth far less than a life in other places; and the accusation that it has aided and abetted some of those responsible for this carnage.

‪The worst of the conflict is in the east of the country – especially North and South Kivu. ‪

There are now 1.4 million internally displaced people in the Kivus – including 220,000 new IDPs. Since April 1st around 200,000 people have been forced to flee in North Kivu; and in South Kivu, 225,000 people were displaced between January and March, a 235% increase compared to the same period in 2011.

Rwanda has been accused of deliberately destabilising the region so that it can pillage rich mineral resources, weaken its Congolese neighbour, and ultimate encourage a secession from the DRC.  Last month a leaked United Nations report by the Group of Experts pointed the finger at Rwanda implicating it in what has become known as the M23 Mutiny. ‪

Last April 300 soldiers in the DRC’s army mutinied, forming the ‘March 23 Movement ‘ – popularly called M23. Led by Bosco Ntaganda, a former member of the Rwandan Patriotic Army he was indicted in May 2008 by the International Criminal Court  for enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 and using them as child soldiers.

The charity World Vision, has collected evidence that M23 has actively conscripted children into the latest upsurge of violence. They quote Jean Claver Rukomeza, a resident of Runyonyi, one of the strongholds of the M23 rebellion, as stating: “I saw at least three or four little fighters accompanying each adult soldier.”

Lambert Mende, the Congolese Minister for Communications, has said that “Between March and April 2012, Rwanda recruited around 200 very young children which it trained and sent out as combat troops in M23.” ‪The same Minister has, meanwhile, had to deny reports that the DRC has armed and equipped groups hostile to Rwanda and encouraged them to take part in tit-for-tat reprisals.

The US State Department’s assessment points to Rwanda’s role in precipitating these latest killings: “We are deeply concerned about the report’s findings that Rwanda is implicated in the provision of support to Congolese rebel groups, including mutinous elements now operating as the M23 armed group. Any such support threatens to further undermine security and fuel displacement in the region. We are also concerned about the report’s findings that the mutineers have forcibly recruited child soldiers.” ‪

The Congolese army has responded to the mutiny by withdrawing units from other parts of the Kivus (an area the size of California) to fight the mutineers. This has left vast areas without security and unprotected. In a lawless and dangerous part of the world this has allowed some of the other militias to capitalise on this situation and, in the vacuum,  opportunistically to seek to impose their control. ‪

‪So, beyond the obvious concern that we should have for the phenomenal loss of life, what has this got do with us? A great deal.

‪First, we are Rwanda’s biggest bilateral donor of aid. Between now and 2015 we will have given them £344 million. We encouraged them to join the Commonwealth and we have upheld President Paul Kagame as a model leader for Africa.

‪I have visited Rwanda and met President Kagame.

He had the unenviable job of rebuilding his country after a genocide which claimed the lives of one million Tutus. The shameful failure of the international community to stop that genocide instilled a sense of guilt in Western donor countries. But that has led them to turn a blind eye as Rwanda has restricted democratic rights and, far more dangerously, has become involved in the destabilisation of the Kivus. ‪

So, it was surprising, that when President Kagame recently met David Cameron in London, the incursions in the Kivus did not feature in their discussions. Anneke Van Woudenberg from Human Rights Watch  says that the UK is “worryingly silent” on the deteriorating situation. ‪

After the Prime Minister met President Kagame a Downing Street spokesman initially said: “The Prime Minister made clear to President Kagame the UK’s serious concerns that Rwanda was providing official support to the M23 rebels in Eastern Congo,” She added: “The Prime Minister urged the President to take steps to calm the situation down and build trust in the region.” ‪

‪However, the official press briefing made no mention of this and said that the discussion was simply about development issues and population control  (the Government’s current obsession). ‪

Britain should make our aid to Rwanda conditional on Rwanda desisting from acting as quartermaster in a conflict which involves the recruitment of hundreds of child soldiers and which has led to  death and displacement on a vast scale.

‪But if we should be using leverage with Rwanda we should also be using leverage with the Congo.

‪ Western countries simply cannot justify giving a staggering $14 billion to the DRC when only 1% has been used for security sector reform and MONUSCO (the United Nations peace keepers in Congo), with 17,000 troops, seems utterly incapable of providing the security, without which, development aid makes precious little difference for the suffering people of the Congo. ‪

Letter To the British Government About Rwanda’s Role in Eastern Congo


Lord Howell of Guildford,
Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Dear David,

Following our exchange during last Thursday’s oral question I referred to Rwanda’s support for rebel groups operating in eastern DRC. I am writing to elaborate on the concerns that I expressed.

Firstly, may I welcome the Government’s statement that the elements disclosed by the addendum to the report of the UN Group of Experts on DRC are credible; just as I welcome the Government’s assessment that there is indeed a danger of the situation spreading and generating increasing instability.

I was also happy to hear that the Government accept that you have both the authority and potential leverage to influence the situation through aid and that they were, according to your statement, using this leverage.

However, I wished to ask you for some clarification over how the Government were using this leverage; as well as some clarification over your statement that “the way [we] do it obviously varies from country to country”.

If it is to be understood that, in the case of Rwanda, a more collaborative and less confrontational approach is deemed more appropriate and/or efficient, especially as Rwanda has achieved such satisfying results following the provision of British aid, I would be grateful to learn about the Government’s assessment on the effectiveness of such approach in this particular case?

Ms. Mushikiwabo, similarly to Mr. Kagame, has unceasingly denied all evidence presented by the UN Group of Experts – and still does so following the exchanges that she had with your colleagues and yourself – and claimed on 27 June that the Rwandan Government was in possession of evidence proving these allegations wrong.

I would be interested to hear whether you asked Minister Mushikiwabo to disclose some of this counter-evidence to you when you met with her. I am also keen to know whether the UK Government really does consider that, in the face of such absolute denials, representations are having any some substantial impact?

Rwanda’s support for armed militias, viewed as defending its own interests, and its involvement in the traffic of minerals on Congolese territory has long and consistently been evidenced, including the Report of the UN Group of Experts. They have been pointing out these very activities in each of their annual reports since its inception.

I would be keen to learn the UK Government’s assessment of what they feel can now be realistically expected from further discussions with a government that has been involved in supporting destabilising operations for the entire decade that followed its war with Congo? Isn’t this repetitive pattern, in spite of public denunciation made by the UN Committee and by many other organisations, a sign that soft behind-closed-doors diplomacy in general, and the UK Government’s in particular, has proved ineffective and insufficient? On the contrary, would you not agree that this pattern illustrates that Rwanda feels the preferential treatment it receives from the UK – its principal donor and ally – protects it from any real threat of sanctions, including withdrawal or conditionality of aid?

Their actions, which contravene many rules of international law, as well as bilateral and multilateral agreements, appear not to unduly trouble the UK Government. At the very minimum surely you would want to make some firm and official statement acknowledging and condemning Rwanda’s long-standing support to forces destabilising the DRC and the region?

Rwanda’s actions in the DRC in the last decade following the war have indeed breached the UN sanction regime, the UN arms embargo, but also the principles of non-aggression and non-intervention, the respect for the sovereignty of States – all principles of conventional and customary law – and is also accountable for the crime of pillage of natural resources, while government’s officials are accountable for the war crime of recruiting children.

Rwanda’s actions also contravene the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between the UK government, acting through DfID, and the Rwandan Government in 2006 (and that will be applicable until 2016), by which Rwanda’s government committed to “the promotion of peace and stability in the Great Lakes region”. Section 6 of the MoU also states that one of the “circumstances in which the UK will consider reducing, interrupting, changing the modalities of, or terminating aid” is if “the Government of Rwanda is in significant violation of human rights or other international obligations, especially those relating to regional peace and security”. It further states that “the UK will take a long term perspective and is more likely to respond to a systematic pattern of events over time. However, a single event might trigger a response if sufficiently serious in nature.”

I would be grateful to learn the Government’s assessment as to whether supporting an armed mutiny and seeking secession of a neighbouring country do constitute events sufficiently serious in nature.

More broadly speaking, I wonder what message the UK is sending to other countries, especially to other recipients of UK’s aid, if the UK does not in any way enforce or strive to have these agreements and rules enforced?

The necessity to adopt a conciliatory approach with a long-time ally is understandable. However, ignoring blatant breaches of bilateral agreements between partners not only undermines the UK’s authority and credibility, but also ignores the question of accountability owed to British tax-payers.

If, indeed, the UK is using its leverage and influence differently from one country to the next (as you said I your reply to me last Thursday), is there not a risk of double standards and thereby risk undermining the legitimacy of UK’s diplomacy and international relations? Isn’t this approach contrary to the standards of transparency claimed, if not by the FCO, at a least certainly by DfID? I will copy this to Andrew Mitchell so that he can also comment on the role of aid in this matter.

Both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of deploying double standards where there have been breaches to international law is questionable. Although I agree that every case should be considered on its merits, I would welcome clarification on the criteria used by the Government in determining its approach. You will recall that in the case of Sudan
I recently questioned the continuation of a normal full diplomatic presence with a regime headed by someone indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. It would be helpful to have spelt out what factors determine our policy, even when this is on a case by case basis.

Moreover, in light of the destabilising actions leading to incalculable loss of life and to abhorrent and egregious violations of human rights – not, least against women and children – not only supported but also instigated by Rwanda, I would be grateful to learn what assessment the UK Government has made of the impact of such actions on UK’s assistance to and investment in the DRC and in the entire region.

The UK government has indeed invested considerable amounts of aid in DRC alone – almost £200 million a year given in aid to the DRC; £135 million of humanitarian assistance that will be provided for the next 5 years. In terms of peacekeeping, and additionally to our legally-binding commitments to the $1.5 billion a year UN peacekeeping mission, we also provide discretionary funding for programmes undertaken by the FCO, DfID and the Ministry of Defence.

Granting this amount of aid and at the same turning a blind eye to destabilising actions from another partnering country seems to make little sense. I would be grateful to learn the Government’s appraisal of this question.

Similarly, and considering that the UK provides 45% of its £83m-a-year aid to Rwanda through general budget support, I would like to know what steps the Government has taken to ensure that no British aid is provided to armed groups destabilising the region and promoting secession of the Congolese territory.

In this respect, I would encourage the UK government to take similar steps to those taken by the US Government, which has confirmed its decision to cut its military aid to Rwanda. Have you made an assessment of the American policy and do we have any plans to follow suit?

I am grateful to you for your consideration of these questions. In the light of their interest in this issue I will copy this note to Lord Chidgey, Baroness Kinnock, Lord Boateng and Baroness King.

With kind regards,

DavidDavid Alton
(Professor Lord Alton of Liverpool)
House of Lords,
London SW1A OPW

http://www.davidalton.net


https://davidalton.net/2012/07/20/congo-question-and-column-killing-in-the-kivus-continues-with-rwandan-complicity-and-bosco-ntaganda-like-jospeh-kony-continues-to-escape-with-impunity-and-to-recruit-children-while-the-world/

Congo – Question and Column – Killing in the Kivus Continues – with Rwandan Complicity – and Bosco Ntaganda, like Jospeh Kony, continues to escape with impunity and to recruit children while the world looks on

Democratic Republic of Congo

Question: July 19th 2012
11.06 am

Asked by
Lord Chidgey

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that mutineers in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo have received assistance from foreign military officials.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford):

My Lords, we have studied the United Nations Group of Experts report and believe it to be credible. We call on the countries named in the report to seek a sustainable resolution to the conflict, and one that breaks the cycle of violence.

Lord Chidgey:

I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that Presidents Kabila and Kagame have agreed that the 11-nation International Conference on the Great Lakes Region should work with the AU and the UN to establish a neutral force along the Rwanda-Congo border? Has President Kagame discussed with our Prime Minister which countries are offering to commit troops while Rwanda withdraws its support from the M23 rebels? Secondly, the Tutsi leader, Senator Mwangachuchu, claims that the M23 rebellion resulted from the ICC judgment against Thomas Lubanga and the indictment of Bosco Ntaganda for recruiting child soldiers and other crimes. Has the Prime Minister offered UK assistance, or has any other agency offered assistance in the pursuit and capture of Bosco Ntaganda?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

In answer to my noble friend’s questions, yes I am aware of the Great Lakes conference agreement by Presidents Kabila and Kagame and others that they should consider the idea of a border force, but it is still only at the thinking stage. Did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discuss this with President Kagame when he saw him a few weeks ago? The answer is no, because the propositions of the Great Lakes group had not come forward at that point. The Prime Minister expressed extreme concern at the Group of Experts report that Rwanda might be involved in backing the M23, but other developments have taken place since.
Has the ICC judgment against Thomas Lubanga created an atmosphere in which the M23 rebellion and breakaway from the Congolese army has taken place? I have to say that it may have played a part, but it is very hard to say. It may have been one of the reasons why Bosco Ntaganda and others retreated from their previous co-operation with the Congo army and have set up a mutineers’ group again. Have we offered, and has my right honourable friend offered, UK assistance in the pursuit and capture of Bosco, who is of course indicted by the ICC? No, because it is the responsibility of the DRC itself to co-operate fully with the ICC, and that is what we constantly urge.
Lord Boateng:
Given the importance of the African Union and South Africa and their good offices to the future of the DRC, would the Minister welcome the accession of the former Foreign Minister of South Africa, Mrs Dlamini-Zuma, to the leadership of the African Union? Her good offices are going to be absolutely crucial at this time if we are to bring peace and security to that area.
Lord Howell of Guildford:
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I certainly welcome that accession. The African Union is playing an increasingly positive part in facing up to the regional issues in the centre of Africa and at the centre of its concerns. We certainly welcome that. Obviously the African Union has played a key part in the International Conference on the Great Lakes, which was in the margins of the meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa the other day. It is a very good prospect that South Africa is playing a leading part, as the noble Lord describes.

Lord Alton of Liverpool:

My Lords, was the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, an acceptance that Rwanda has been aiding and abetting not only M23 but the other six rebel groups that have led to 1.4 million people being displaced in the Kivu in eastern Congo? That being the case, why are we not using the £344 million of aid which we are providing to Rwanda as leverage to persuade Rwanda not to aid and abet these insurgent groups, and to do rather more to bring to justice people such as Bosco Ntaganda, who has been responsible for the recruitment of child soldiers, which has led to the deaths of countless numbers of people—a haemorrhaging loss of life that dwarfs even the terrible and tragic events in Syria by comparison?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, no one questions the atrocities and misery of these various armies. I have counted five different armies and groups involved in killing and fighting each other in the region, and there is an extreme danger of this spreading and creating mayhem more widely on both humanitarian and security grounds. That is certainly the case.

As to our leverage, our aid programme is not quite as large as the sum mentioned by the noble Lord. I have a figure of £198 million a year to the DRC, and £83 million a year to Rwanda. Certainly our judgment is that, through that aid, we have the authority and the leverage to influence the situation. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda, Louise Mushikiwabo, about three weeks ago, as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Development and my honourable friend Mr Bellingham. We all impressed on her and her colleagues the necessity of facing up to the reality, and of Rwanda’s activity, as reported in the Group of Experts, to cease and to make way for a proper solution to the conflict. We are using our leverage and influence in a very nasty situation, but the way we do it obviously varies from country to country.

The Archbishop of Canterbury:

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to ask a question in this particular context, because I think the plight of the Congo is well known to everyone in this House. The issue of regional co-operation has already been flagged indirectly in what has been said. One of the questions I would like to ask is to do with what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to foster a broader regional strategic engagement involving more than simply the Governments of Rwanda and Congo. As part of that regional question, I am very concerned about a cross-border issue in the region: the plight of the indigenous peoples and indigenous minorities such as the Batwa. Twelve months ago I met the Batwa community in Congo and was dismayed to find what little attention some local authorities, especially by the United Nations, give to their plight. Are the Government aware of this?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

I am very grateful to the most reverend Primate for his question about the regional aspects, which are vital. May I answer him in this way? First, my honourable friend Mr Bellingham, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary concerned with African matters, was at the African Union conference last week and talked to regional leaders in detail all the time. Secondly, we have been promoting the idea of regional dialogue between the countries concerned. Thirdly, we are the third largest humanitarian donor trying to grapple with the situation. Fourthly, there is the matter, which my noble friend raised, of the Great Lakes group and its movement towards the idea of detailed regional co-operation and the involvement of all the key players in the region in solving this problem themselves. The regional aspect is very important, and I fully agree with the most reverend Primate that this is what we should concentrate on.
As to the cross-border issue, which was his other question—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Howell of Guildford:
I have been asked many questions, which produces many answers. The cross-border issue is very serious and we are looking at it very closely.

Baroness King of Bow:
My Lords—
Lord Avebury:
My Lords—
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde):

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady King, has been trying very hard to get in.

Baroness King of Bow:

My Lords, I have visited the Great Lakes region on 10 occasions over a decade and I have never ceased to be amazed by the resilience and dignity of the local populations and the barbarity and scale of the atrocities visited on them, such as a nine month-old baby who was raped with a military-issue rifle and who then sustained terrible gunshot wounds. Does the Minister agree that we need to hold Rwanda to account, and that we should also hold the Congolese army to account? Could he press for more military tribunals so that we can play our role in ensuring that innocent victims such as that nine month-old baby girl get the justice they deserve?

Lord Howell of Guildford:

Yes. Obviously we encourage the bringing to account of the very evil people who are committing these atrocities; there is no question at all about that. Bosco Ntaganda has been indicted by the ICC, and Rwanda has its own tribunal and court for assessing the horrors of the past. In all other aspects of bringing those involved to account, we will certainly press as hard as we can in the ways I have described in detail to your Lordships over the past five minutes.


Universe Column‬

David Alton‬

According to the International Rescue Committee, since 1998 almost five and a half million people have died from war-related causes in the Congo (the DRC). Many have died violently but even more have died from diseases which have attacked displaced people left without sanitation, homes or food. The IRC say that up to 45,000 people continue to die every month. Although this makes the Congo the world’s deadliest conflict since the Second World War, it rarely makes our TV screens or news reports.‬ ‪

The scandalous conflict in the Congo and the haemorrhaging loss of life – often driven by power hungry militias and the pillaging of the country’s natural resources – dwarfs even the barbarism in Syria. It exposes the West to two things – the accusation that it considers a life in Africa to be worth far less than a life in other places; and the accusation that it has aided and abetted some of those responsible for this carnage.‬

‪‬

‪The worst of the conflict is in the east of the country – especially North and South Kivu.‬ ‪‬


There are now 1.4 million internally displaced people in the Kivus – including 220,000 new IDPs. Since April 1st around 200,000 people have been forced to flee in North Kivu; and in South Kivu, 225,000 people were displaced between January and March, a 235% increase compared to the same period in 2011‬.
‪‬


Rwanda has been accused of deliberately destabilising the region so that it can pillage rich mineral resources, weaken its Congolese neighbour, and ultimate encourage a secession from the DRC. Last month a leaked United Nations report by the Group of Experts pointed the finger at Rwanda implicating it in what has become known as the M23 Mutiny.‬ ‪

Last April 300 soldiers in the DRC’s army mutinied, forming the

Child Soldiers in the Kivus

Bosco Ntaganda – indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2008 and despite the presence of 17,000 UN soldiers still at large in 2012 and still recruiting child soldiers

Rape is routinely used as a weapon of war in the Kivus

Women are terrorised and raped along with their children

– popularly called M23. Led by Bosco Ntaganda, a former member of the Rwandan Patriotic Army he was indicted in May 2008 by the International Criminal Court for enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 and using them as child soldiers.‬

News reports suggest that M23 has actively conscripted children into the latest upsurge of violence. They quote Jean Claver Rukomeza, a resident of Runyonyi, one of the strongholds of the M23 rebellion, as stating: “I saw at least three or four little fighters accompanying each adult soldier.”‬

‪‬


Lambert Mende, the Congolese Minister for Communications, has said that “Between March and April 2012, Rwanda recruited around 200 very young children which it trained and sent out as combat troops in M23.”‬ ‪The same Minister has, meanwhile, had to deny reports that the DRC has armed and equipped groups hostile to Rwanda and encouraged them to take part in tit-for-tat reprisals.‬

‪‬


The US State Department’s assessment points to Rwanda’s role in precipitating these latest killings: “We are deeply concerned about the report’s findings that Rwanda is implicated in the provision of support to Congolese rebel groups, including mutinous elements now operating as the M23 armed group. Any such support threatens to further undermine security and fuel displacement in the region. We are also concerned about the report’s findings that the mutineers have forcibly recruited child soldiers.”‬ ‪‬


The Congolese army has responded to the mutiny by withdrawing units from other parts of the Kivus (an area the size of California) to fight the mutineers. This has left vast areas without security and unprotected. In a lawless and dangerous part of the world this has allowed some of the other militias to capitalise on this situation and, in the vacuum, opportunistically to seek to impose their control.‬ ‪‬

‪So, beyond the obvious concern that we should have for the phenomenal loss of life, what has this got do with us? A great deal.‬

‪First, we are Rwanda’s biggest bilateral donor of aid. Between now and 2015 we will have given them £344 million. We encouraged them to join the Commonwealth and we have upheld President Paul Kagame as a model leader for Africa.‬

‪‬

‪I have visited Rwanda and met President Kagame.

He had the unenviable job of rebuilding his country after a genocide which claimed the lives of one million Tutus. The shameful failure of the international community to stop that genocide instilled a sense of guilt in Western donor countries. But that has led them to turn a blind eye as Rwanda has restricted democratic rights and, far more dangerously, has become involved in the destabilisation of the Kivus.‬ ‪‬


So, it was surprising, that when President Kagame recently met David Cameron in London, the incursions in the Kivus did not feature in their discussions. Anneke Van Woudenberg from Human Rights Watch says that the UK is “worryingly silent” on the deteriorating situation.‬ ‪‬


After the Prime Minister met President Kagame a Downing Street spokesman initially said: “The Prime Minister made clear to President Kagame the UK’s serious concerns that Rwanda was providing official support to the M23 rebels in Eastern Congo,” She added: “The Prime Minister urged the President to take steps to calm the situation down and build trust in the region.”‬ ‪‬

‪However, the official press briefing made no mention of this and said that the discussion was simply about development issues and population control (the Government’s current obsession).‬ ‪

Britain should make our aid to Rwanda conditional on Rwanda desisting from acting as quartermaster in a conflict which involves the recruitment of hundreds of child soldiers and which has led to death and displacement on a vast scale.‬

‪But if we should be using leverage with Rwanda we should also be using leverage with the Congo.‬

‪‬

‪ Western countries simply cannot justify giving a staggering $14 billion to the DRC when only 1% has been used for security sector reform and MONUSCO (the United Nations peace keepers in Congo), with 17,000 troops, seems utterly incapable of providing the security, without which, development aid makes precious little difference for the suffering people of the Congo.‬ ‪‬