PRESS CONFERENCE BY RWANDA

The Government of Rwanda was fully committed to the implementation of the Pretoria Peace accord, Rwanda’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this morning.

Addressing the current situation in the Great Lakes region, Anastase Gasana said the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a signatory to the Pretoria Peace Agreement, could not accuse Rwanda of having violated the peace agreement.  By signing the Pretoria accord, Rwanda had indicated its decision to make peace in the Great Lakes region.  Rwanda had not violated the Pretoria peace accord.  Rwanda knew why it had signed the agreement.  The peoples of the two countries should be the first beneficiaries of that agreement.  Partial peace was impossible.  "When you decide to make peace, you make peace", he said. 

Signing the peace agreement, however, did not mean that Rwanda had disengaged from protecting its people from attack by Ex-FAR -- former Forces armées rwandaises -- and Interahamwe militia, Ambassador Gasana added.  The Ex-FAR and Interahamwe militias had received new arms and ammunition from the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in South Kivu.  They were trying to take advantage of the agreement and return to Rwanda.  The Government of Rwanda was obliged to prevent "genocidal people" from returning to Rwanda and attacking Rwandese people.  Areas including Kazimya, Lulimba, Salamabila and Nzovu were known to be the positions of the Interahamwe and Ex-FAR militias.  That was where the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was supplying militia with arms and ammunition. 

By supplying the Ex-FAR and Interahamwe militias with moral, political, military and financial support, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was, in fact, violating the Pretoria agreement, he said.  That agreement stipulated that the Democratic Republic of the Congo must stop all forms of support to the militia.  That was not happening on the ground, which was why there had been fighting in South Kivu.  That area was not under the control of the Kinshasa Government.  Complaints from the Democratic Republic of the Congo should be addressed to the third party to the agreement -- South Africa -- and not to the President of the Security Council.  What the Democratic Republic of the Congo was doing amounted to propaganda.

Would it be possible to proceed with the accord when there had already been such bad faith? a correspondent asked.  Rwanda would have no problem in implementing the agreement, Ambassador Gasana said.   The agreement had been signed, indicating Rwanda's readiness to withdraw its forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo when its security concerns were properly addressed. 

Rwanda had also provided its withdrawal plans to the third party, he continued.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo was failing to implement the agreement.  The first thing the Democratic Republic of the Congo had to do was to stop all forms of support to the Ex-FAR and Interahamwe militias.  Rwanda had already demonstrated its commitment to implementing the agreement by declaring its intention to withdraw once security concerns had been addressed.

At what point would he consider Rwanda's security concerns addressed?, a correspondent asked.  The Security Council had asked for dialogue between the two parties, Ambassador Gasana replied.  Rwanda had tried to dialogue with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Although the Presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo had met several times, the meetings had not produced concrete results.  The problem was that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and President Joseph Kabila had failed to distance themselves from the Ex-FAR and the Interahamwe militias.  They had failed to arrest those wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha.  When the process of cantonment, disarmament and repatriation was completed, Rwanda, as well as the third party to the agreement, would consider that security concerns had been addressed and would start the process of withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

What steps had Rwanda taken to exercise its influence on the Congolese Rally for Democracy-Goma as requested by the Security Council?, a correspondent asked.  RCD-Goma was an armed Congolese movement, Ambassador Gasana said.  The RCD-Goma had its own reasons for fighting the Kinshasa Government.  Rwanda's reasons for fighting in the Congo were totally different and had to do with the existence of Ex-FAR and Interahamwe sanctuaries.  It was difficult for Rwanda to exercise its influence.  Because the RCD and Rwanda were allies, Rwanda could try to talk to them but they could not impose anything on them.  The movement consisted of Congolese, not Rwandan citizens, and it had its own interests. 

Asked to outline Rwanda's conditions for withdrawal from the Congo, Ambassador Gasana said that the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme was clear.  First, all forms of support to the Ex-FAR and the Interahamwe must be stopped.  Secondly, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was under obligation to arrest and hand over those who had been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  The Ex-FAR and Interahamwe militias must then be assembled, disarmed and repatriated.  The Government of Rwanda was ready to receive them under international monitoring.  Rwanda had no problem with the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) following the process.  Rwanda had already successfully repatriated former militias who had formed an association to preach peace and reconciliation throughout the country.

Responding to the comment that the international community seemed to be placing more responsibility on Kigali to reform, Ambassador Gasana said that in 1994 the international community had watched the Ex-FAR and Interahamwe carry out the genocide in Rwanda.  When they had finished killing some one million people in Rwanda, they had fled to the Congo.  It had been their choice not to flee to other neighbouring countries.  The Government and the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo were partly responsible.  The people responsible for the genocide had received sanctuary in the Democratic Republic of the Congo because that Government had supported them.  Congolese people were responsible for the militia being on their territory. 

The international community had failed to prevent the genocide, to manage refugee camps in the Congo and to separate former army members from genuine refugees, he added.  The international community had failed to do its work even

within the Congo.  People could not say that it was the responsibility of Rwanda.  It was mainly the responsibility of the international community.  Rwanda had been a victim.

How could Rwanda monitor the situation in Ex-FAR and Interahamwe areas? a correspondent asked.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo had recognized that

Ex-FAR and Interahamwe were in the areas controlled by Kinshasa and other groups through the Lusaka and the Pretoria agreements, Ambassador Gasana said.  By the terms of the two accords, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was obligated to report to the third party and MONUC on the whereabouts of those people.

How would it be possible to know if there was continuing support for the

Ex-FAR and Interahamwe? a correspondent asked.  MONUC and the Joint Military Commission (JMC) knew the areas used by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to supply armed forces.  It was not difficult for MONUC and the JMC to confirm that the militias were being supplied. 

* *** *