JUNE 2001

Now the untouchables have been touched. Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi have been named and shamed at last by the UN investigation into the looting of Congo’s resources. All that is left is for the UN Security Council to put the icing on the cake. Africa cannot wait. Baffour Ankomah reports.

Finally, Nemesis has caught up with Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. The UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of Congo, which was set up in June last year, headed by Madam Safiatou Ba-N’Daw (from Cote d’Ivoire), finally reported in mid-April and confirmed what New African has been saying for the past 18 months: That the looting of Congo’s natural resources by Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the rebels they support, is, (according to the Panel) ?taking place at an alarming rate?.

Going by natural resources, Congo is by far the richest African country, but it is poor because its resources have always been siphoned out to benefit outsiders.

The UN Panel had limited time at its disposal, and ?given the high number of natural resources found in Congo?, it concentrated on a few minerals — primarily coltan, diamonds, gold, cassiterite, and forest and agricultural products such as timber, coffee, ivory, wildlife and other forms of wealth, primarily taxes.

In all these categories, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the rebels they support were found wanting.

Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia

Though the Panel says it did not receive enough cooperation or ?the same quantity and quality of data? from Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (who are in Congo at the invitation of the government in Kinshasa), the Panel’s definition of ?illegal exploitation? was always going to let Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia off the hook.

?In the Panel’s view, the understanding of illegality is underpinned by four elements all related to the rule of law,? the report says.

The first, ?violation of sovereignty, is based on the Security Council’s understanding of illegality...

?This posits that all activities — extraction, production, commercialisation and exports — taking place in Congo without the consent of the legitimate government are illegal. This interpretation suggested that only non-invited forces and their nationals are carrying out illegal activities in Congo.?

The second is, ?respect by actors of the existing regulatory framework in the country or territory where they operate...

?The Panel considers that if authorities exerting effective power and control over their sovereign area recognise or set up a regulatory framework to govern the use or exploitation of resources, this framework shall be respected. Failure to do so may lead to the infringement of the law and, therefore, activities considered illegal or unlawful. In this case, the Panel deems illegality to be the carrying out of an activity in violation of an existing body of regulations.?

The third is, ?the discrepancy between widely accepted practices in trade and business and the way business is done in Congo... This includes forced monopoly in trading, the unilateral fixing of prices of products by the buyer, the confiscation or looting of products from farmers, and the use of military forces in various zones to protect some interests or to create a situation of monopoly.?

The fourth, ?the violation of international law, including ?soft’ law?, is considered by the Panel to mean ?business activities carried out in violation of international law?.

The word, ?exploitation?, the Panel says, was used in the report in its ?broad understanding and interpretation... Exploitation was used beyond the mere consideration of production and extraction. It was viewed as all activities that enable actors and stakeholders to engage in business in first, secondary and tertiary sectors... The broad interpretation enabled the Panel to look into extraction, production, commercialisation and exports of natural resources and other services such as transport and financial transactions.?


The aggressors

Apart from Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, there are three main rebel groups in Congo. There is the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RCD-Goma) based in Goma and led by Adolphe Onosumba. Supported by Rwanda, RCD-Goma occupies the whole of eastern Congo, northern Katanga and parts of central Congo.

There is also RCD-Bunia (also known as RCD-ML) based in Bunia and led by Professor Ernest Wamba dia Wamba. Supported by Uganda, RCD-Bunia occupies the extremities of northeastern Congo.

The third major rebel group is the Mouvement de Liberation Congolais (MLC) based in Gbadolite, led by Jean Pierre Bemba and supported by Uganda. The MLC recently merged with RCD-Bunia to form the Front de Liberation du Congo (FLC), again supported by Uganda.

The Panel says between September 1998 and August 1999, the occupied zones of Congo were drained of existing stockpiles of minerals, agricultural and forest products, including livestock.

?Regardless of the looter, the pattern was the same. Burundian, Rwandan, Ugandan and/or RCD soldiers, commanded by an officer, visited farms, storage facilities, factories, banks, and demanded that the managers open the coffers and doors. The soldiers were then ordered to remove the relevant products and load them into vehicles.?

(Names are mentioned, but for legal reasons we will withhold them in this article). Ugandan high officials — both military and civilian, ranging from the brother of President Museveni and his (brother’s) wife, to military officers have all helped themselves to Congo’s wealth. It is ditto in Rwanda and Burundi.

?When resource stockpiles were looted and exhausted by occupying forces and their allies, the exploitation evolved to an active extraction phase,? the Panel says.

?On the basis of eyewitness accounts, satellite images, key actors’ acknowledgements and the Panel’s own investigation, there is sufficient evidence to prove that timber extraction is directly related to the Ugandan presence in Orientale Province. This has reached alarming proportions and Ugandans (civilians, soldiers and companies) are extensively involved in these activities.?

The Panel says ?Burundians and Rwandans have also extracted timber or have been associated with Congolese loggers?.

In the mining sector, direct extraction was carried out in three ways: (a) by individual soldiers for their own benefit; (b) by locals organised by Rwandan and Ugandan commanders; and (c) by foreign nationals for the army or commanders’ benefit.

?The last pattern of organised extraction by the occupying forces involves the import of manpower for mining. Occupying forces brought manpower from their own countries and provided the necessary security and logistics. In particular, Rwanda utilised prisoners to dig coltan in exchange for a sentence reduction and limited cash to buy food.

?The Panel was recently informed that there is a presence of 1,500 Rwandan prisoners in the Numbi area of Kalehe. According to the same report, these prisoners were seen mining coltan while guarded by [Rwandan] soldiers.?

Col-tan (or columbite-tantalite) is the ?new? miracle metal to come from Africa, used in the high-tech and aerospace industries for anything ranging from mobile phones, space crafts and stations, computers, playstations, electronic capacitors and rectifiers, surgery and dental tools, turbine blades, in fact anything that needs passive capacitors to maintain the electric charge of a computer microchip.

Coltan is so crucial to the global economy that ?poor? Africa has, once again, become the granary of the world. The shiny grey metal is found in Zimbabwe, Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Ethiopia and elsewhere, but some of the highest grade ones are found in eastern Congo occupied by Rwanda, Uganda and the rebels.

Coltan looms large in the UN Panel report. It says the aggressors are using child labour to mine coltan, gold and other minerals.

The looting, the Panel says, is facilitated by the administrative structures established by Uganda and Rwanda.

?On the Ugandan, MLC and RCD-ML side, rebel leaders and Ugandan military officers created new companies and businesses using prete-noms.?

On the Rwandan side, the report says, ?most companies with important activities related to the natural resources of Congo are owned either by the government or by individuals very close to the inner circle of President [Paul] Kagame... The government of Rwanda made arrangements with RCD-Goma to drain resources from Congo?.

Uganda

The Panel says Uganda gave it extensive data regarding its exports, but it contained substantial discrepancies. ?First, export figures for gold are consistently greater than production values,? the report says.

?The Central Bank of Uganda has reportedly acknowledged to IMF officials that the volume of Ugandan gold exports does not reflect [the] country’s production levels but rather that some exports might be ?leaking over the borders’ from Congo.

?The Central Bank reported that, by September 1997, Uganda had exported gold valued at $105m, compared with $60m in 1996 and $23m in 1995.?

Regarding diamonds, the Panel found Uganda’s exports ?suspicious? for many reasons: ?(a) Uganda has no known diamond production; (b) Diamond exports from Uganda [began] only in the last few years, coinciding surprisingly with the occupation of eastern Congo; and (c) the need [for Uganda] to control the rich diamond zone near Kisangani and Banalia.?

The Panel says there are indications that Uganda exported more diamonds, from 1997 onwards, than the figures showed.

Uganda has also become an exporter of niobium, another mineral similar to coltan, but the Panel says Uganda had ?no production [of niobium] prior to 1997?, coinciding with its presence in Congo.

Uganda’s ?sudden increase in the import of [the mineral] cassiterite may also mean an increase in the import of coltan. The Panel discovered that cassiterite is often listed in lieu of coltan, as coltan possesses a higher value, which implies high import taxes in Uganda.?

On military expenditure, the Panel says ?Uganda officially spends 2% of its GDP on defence, which is being monitored by the Bretton Woods institutions. For the fiscal year 2000, the defence budget was about $110m. This covers pay of about $70 per month for 50,000 soldiers, 10,000 of whom are stationed in Congo...

?The budget line for pay alone for a year is about $41m for the 50,000 soldiers. If a bonus of $20 is paid to each of the 10,000 soldiers [in Congo], that would amount to $200,000 per month (in 1998 and 1999), a total of $2.4m per year...

?[The armed forces] spends on average $12.96m per year on transportation alone... [In total] Uganda spent about $126m on its armed forces in 1999, an overspending of about $16m.


Rwanda

The Panel says the Rwandan authorities themselves admitted that the country ?has no production of diamond, cobalt, zinc, manganese and uranium. Yet there is substantial evidence from the World Trade Organisation, the Diamond High Council and Belgian statistics that Rwanda has been exporting diamonds?.

Rwanda’s production figures, the report says, display some irregular patterns for gold and coltan starting from 1997. ?It is revealing that the increase in production of these two minerals appeared to happen while the AFDL [led by the late President Kabila], backed by Rwandan troops, was taking over power in Kinshasa.?

The report says Rwanda spends about 3% of its GDP or 29% of its annual budget on defence. In the current fiscal year, $70m was allocated to defence in the national budget. The Panel reckons that Rwanda needs 25,000 soldiers to cover the area of Congo under its occupation.

?An aircraft owner operating in the region has indicated that he charges on average $2,000 per hour... The Panel estimates five rotations for Rwanda at an average of six hours each. A simple calculation gives a figure of $1.8m per month and $21.6m per year.

?Based on the minimum number of 25,000 soldiers, and an average of $100 for pay and bonuses, the Panel calculated a total of $2.5m per month and $30m per year. Transportation and pay of troops alone in Congo amount to $51.6m per year, which is about three-quarters of the total Rwandan official defence budget.

?By taking into consideration the remaining 20,000 soldiers stationed in Rwanda and their average pay of $50 per month, almost the total defence budget ($63m) is used on two items...

?All military experts consulted suggested that the official defence budget of Rwanda cannot alone cover the cost of their war and presence in Congo. The Panel concurs with President Kagame who described the conflict in Congo as a ?self financing war’.?

Burundi

The report says an IMF office memo indicates that ?Burundi does not produce gold, diamonds, coltan, copper, cobalt, or basic metals?. Yet the Panel found that ?Burundi has been exporting minerals it does not produce.

?As in the case of Uganda and Rwanda, Burundi’s export of diamonds dates from 1998, coinciding with the occupation of eastern Congo. The coltan exports span a longer period (1995-1999), perhaps suggesting that this might be a regular activity.?


Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia

The Panel says only third party sources were used to determine whether production and export trends in the three countries showed abnormalities. ?Available production and export statistics relative to Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe were fairly normal in terms of trend. They did not reveal any suspicious behaviour.? But the Panel warns that ?additional data are needed for a definite stand on the issue. In the case of Zimbabwe, accounts of ongoing and pending deals give clear indications of their potential impact on the balance of payments.?

Interestingly, the Panel found ?Zimbabwe’s overall defence budget has been decreasing at the very moment that [it] has troops engaged in Congo. A reduction was announced early in January 2000, lowering the budget from Z$15.3bn in 2000 to Z$13.3bn in 2001. Yet [Zimbabwe] with approximately 10,000 troops in Congo spent an average US$3m per month, a total of US$36m in a year.?

Financing the war

?The question is: how do the different parties finance their war effort??, the Panel asks and provides the answer:

RWANDA: ?The economies of Rwanda and Uganda, unlike those of Angola and Namibia, have to varying extents financially benefited from the conflict. Zimbabwe is a special case given the potential of concessions attributed to Zimbabwean companies...?

The Panel estimates that the Rwandan army could have made $20m per month, or at least $250m over a period of 18 months, simply selling the coltan that intermediaries buy from small dealers at $10 per kilo. ?This is substantial enough to finance the war,? the report says. ?Here lies the vicious circle of the war. Coltan has permitted the Rwandan army to sustain its presence in Congo.?

UGANDA: The Panel says unlike Rwanda, Uganda did not set up an extra-budgetary system to finance the Congo war. ?The regular defence budget is used and broadly the deficit is handled by the treasury,? says the report.

?However, the Ugandan economy benefited from the conflict through the re-exportation economy. In turn, the treasury benefited and this allowed an increase in the defence budget.

?The re-exportation economy implies that natural resources imported from Congo are repackaged or sealed as Ugandan natural resources or products and re-exported. That is the case for some gold, diamonds, coltan and coffee exported by Uganda. The re-exportation economy has had a tremendous impact on the financing of the war...

?The illegal exploitation of gold in Congo brought a significant improvement in the balance of payments of Uganda. This, in turn, gave multilateral donors, especially the IMF which was monitoring the Ugandan treasury situation, more confidence in the Ugandan economy...

?The improvement in GDP has permitted, according to Ugandan officials, an increase in absolute terms of the military budget while keeping the level of the military budget at the agreed 2% of GDP.

?The apparent strength of the Ugandan economy has given more confidence to investors and bilateral and multilateral donors who, by maintaining their level of cooperation and assitance to Uganda, gave the government room to spend more on security matters while other sectors, such as education, health and governance, are being taken care of by the bilateral and multilateral aid.

REBELS: The report says ?officially? they receive the bulk of their military equipment from the Ugandan and Rwandan armies.

ZIMBABWE: The Panel says Harare has financed its war effort in two different ways: ?(a) by using the defence budget — the bulk of Zimbabwe’s military expenses seem to be covered by the regular budget; and (b) by indirect financing through direct payment by some Congolese entities, mainly companies.?

Zimbabwean companies have also entered into joint ventures that have led to their receiving ?interesting mining concessions? or using their influence with the government of Congo to develop business partnerships with private companies and parastatals. Part of the receipts from these ventures goes into financing the war.

Presidents in the dock

The Panel says it will not make allegations about the personal involvement of presidents in the looting of Congo’s resources until further investigations are carried out.

However, it says, the ?role? of Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, ?has remained pivotal. This role can be situated on three levels: his relations with the Rwandan business community operating in Congo, control over the army, and the structure involved in the illegal activities...

?The president has admitted in the past that the conflict in Congo was self-financing. All these elements combined suggest the president’s degree of knowledge of the situation, his implicit approval of the continuation of the [looting] and somehow his complicity as well as his political and moral responsibility.?

Regarding the Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, the Panel says ?his policy towards the rebel movements, his attitude towards the army and the protection provided to illegal activities and their perpetrators? sums up his role in the continuation of the war and the looting of Congo’s resources.

Museveni ?has shaped the rebellion in the area controlled by Uganda according to his own political philosophy and agenda... The president’s family has also been very involved in business in the occupied zones of Congo. [His brother and his (brother’s)] wife have confidently carried out their activities undisturbed.

?The Panel concludes that when the information is passed on to the president and he chooses not to act, when he appoints the very people who carry out criminal activities, and when his family members get away with criminal activities, it becomes overwhelming that the president has put himself in the position of accomplice.?

The Panel therefore recommends, among other things, that the UN Security Council immediately declare a temporary embargo on the import or export of coltan, niobium, pyrochlore, cassiterite, timber, gold and diamonds from or to Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi until those countries involvement in the looting of Congo’s resources is made clear and declared so by the Security Council.

The accounts of the rebel movements in Congo and their leaders should also be frozen ?without delay?. UN member countries should also ?immediately? freeze the accounts of the companies and individuals who continue to loot Congo’s resources.

Back to the top
Contents