Genocide and War in Central Africa: Pursuing the Criminals

Real Audio of Briefing

        AMB. PROSPER:  Thank you very much.

       Last week I traveled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to launch the second phase of our aggressive and targeted Rewards for Justice campaign. The phase of this campaign targets for apprehension nine individuals who stand accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and various war crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These individuals are believed to frequent the Congo, and they continue to play a destructive role throughout the region.

       Our effort is designed not only to bring these individuals to justice, but it is also our part in contribution to the recently concluded peace agreement reached in South Africa.

       While in the Congo, I met with President Kabila and many members of his administration. They expressed full support for our program in the pursuit and apprehension of these individuals.

       It is our firm belief that a key to ending the war in the Congo between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda and thus bringing peace and stability in the region is arresting and apprehending these key tribunal indictees, who also play a leadership role in fueling the war. We believe that with their arrests and transfer to Arusha, Tanzania, the seat of the tribunal, an environment will be created that will allow for the disarmament, the demobilization and the repatriation of the foot soldiers, the ex-FAR/Interahamwe, which will in turn allow for Rwanda to withdraw from the Congo.

       We want to see Rwanda withdraw from the Congo. We also want to see the Democratic Republic of the Congo take steps to address Rwanda's security concerns. We are prepared to help and assist. We welcome the agreement reached in South Africa and hope that it will lead to peace in the region.

       We remind all states in the Central African region of their international obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal for Rwanda. This means that all the states in the region, particularly the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, and Angola, must seek and arrest all indictees that may be on their territory. Only through a concerted regional and international effort will we be able to take the steps that are necessary to achieve lasting peace in the region.

       Thank you.

       MODERATOR: We'll be glad to take your questions now. Again I'd remind you to please use the microphone and introduce yourself.

       Q Charlie Cobb with allAfrica.com. The framework agreement that was reached in South Africa between the Rwandese and the Congolese gives 90 days for this kind of roundup to take place.

       Is that a reasonable time frame, in your view, given that most observers consider the Kinshasa government to be just that, a government of Kinshasa more than a government of the Congo. So how realistic do you think it is, this 90-day time frame?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, it's difficult to project out to see if in fact the 90-day time frame will be met. But what we do recognize is that in order to meet this objective, that the parties need to begin to take actions immediately. We need to see immediate steps taken in order to apprehend, disarm, and demobilize some of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe. Rwanda will need to immediately begin to take the steps towards withdrawal because time will be needed for this withdrawal process.

       It is an ambitious agenda that has been set forth. We, again, are prepared to work with the parties, work with South Africa to see how we can further the process. But again, if the objectives of the accord are to be met, the work needs to begin immediately.

       Q Adu-Asare, AfricaNewscast.com. Is there any sense that these people we're looking for are still in the region?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, there is. We do believe that they're in the region. We recognize that they are mobile, that they transit between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Angola and some other states. We are obtaining some information as to the whereabouts of some of these individuals. We are in the process of engaging the governments in the region, sharing information, and impressing upon them their responsibility to fulfill their international obligations and arrest them.

       Again, it is our hope that by not only working with the governments, but having such a visible and overt rewards campaign, the message will be sent that the area is no longer hospitable for these individuals and that the governments and the citizens of these countries will take action to bring them into custody.

       Q I would like to have a follow-up. This Adu-Asare. What if these people are not apprehended?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, there's two things we're trying to achieve here -- several things, actually. First, we obviously want to bring them into custody, not only because they need to answer to the charges that are levied against them, but also it will contribute to the peace process.

       The second point of our approach is we want to change the tone, change the environment to make the area inhospitable. We want to stress to these fugitives that the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Congo -- the Republic of the Congo, Angola and other countries are no longer and cannot be safe havens.

       If we meet those objectives, we are already in the plus column, if you will.

       But it is our belief that they will be apprehended. We will need to take the steps to make it happen. It may be today, it may be tomorrow, it may be next year, but we do believe that they will eventually find their way to Arusha.

       MODERATOR: Jim?

       Q Jim Fisher-Thompson, Washington Files. Speaking of Arusha, there have been some criticisms in the past about the speed with which the ICTR there has operated and the efficiency with which the court has operated. There were some problems a year or so back with some of the administrators -- the U.N. administrators there. Are you satisfied now with the speed the court's working at? And do you think that if these perpetrators were in fact handed over to the court, that there would be a fairly speedy process of justice there?

       AMB. PROSPER: We are -- we do believe that the tribunal has taken steps in reform to increase its efficiency. We also recognize that more steps can be taken.

       The tribunal court calendar now is backlogged with a significant number of cases. It has come to our attention, the attention of the Security Council -- the issue or the question of whether or not additional judges should be assigned to the process. We, the United States, are supportive of this idea, this concept. We intend to use our presidency in the Security Council to see if we can advance this issue, to add resources to the tribunal for Rwanda, so that it can move at a more expeditious pace.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q In that same vein, would you comment on these -- for a lack of a better phrase, these community courts that were set up --

       AMB. PROSPER: Mm-hmm, gacacas.

       Q Gacacas, yeah.

       AMB. PROSPER: Gacacas, yeah.

       Q How are they working? I mean, are they easing the load of the tribunal?

       And while I have the mike, do you have, in terms of the people being sought in the Congo, an actual number in mind? How many people are we talking about? And are there names associated with that?

       AMB. PROSPER: Yeah. Yeah. The people that we are are seeking in the Congo -- the numbers will be in the area of 15 to 20. Right now we have nine names that we have made public, nine that have been indicted. We expect to add more to the list later, and then at the end of the conference we can give you some additional names.

       But the -- in short, the number is small. We're really looking for the leadership, the people who not only played a key role in the genocide, but also persons who are playing a key and fundamental role in fueling the conflict.

       Regarding the gacaca courts that have been created in Rwanda, they should not have an impact on the tribunal, because the tribunal -- its mandate is to pursue the leadership, those that bear the most responsibility for the genocide.

       The gacaca will be used to address the lower level offenders who continue to remain in custody in Rwandan jails, without having a day in court. This will be a process that will hopefully alleviate the burden that is being placed on the ordinary judicial system in Rwanda. It is a community-based justice system where the community elders will pass judgment on the actions of the individuals. The punishment will be determined by the community. It will not necessarily encompass incarceration. It will be more of a community service approach.

       We are prepared to support and we have been supporting that process. We believe that an alternative justice mechanism is needed and has been needed in Rwanda to deal with the sheer number of accused persons that are currently in the system.

       Q Adu-Asare, AfricaNewscast.com. Do I get the sense that maybe the rest of the world is conceding to the dictates of Rwanda with respect to Rwanda's troops remaining in the DRC? And Rwanda -- I mean, Paul Kagame maybe -- that tiny country is becoming the most influential country in that region. Do you have a comment on that?

       AMB. PROSPER: I think what you're seeing is that the international community is putting a sharp focus on the conflict in the Congo. It's time, and it's been more than time, that we need to find a resolution to this conflict, to bring peace and stability.

       Regarding Rwanda and Rwanda's concern, it is something that needs to be addressed. Rwanda has raised the fact that they have a serious security concern at their border -- or on their border. We are taking that seriously. But at the same time, we have made it known to Rwanda, and we have made our message clear, that we believe that they need to withdraw. They need to leave the Congo without conditions.

       But we are playing a role. We want to facilitate this process by addressing the security concerns, and that is the apprehension of the leadership of the ex-FAR/Interahamwe, who also find themselves indicted by the tribunal, and then the demobilization, repatriation to Rwanda of the foot soldiers who may not bear criminal responsibility, but they have played a role in the conflict over the years.

       Q Adu-Asare. We have heard from a lot of U.S. officials about the message to Rwanda over the years, repeated, just like we hear the message to the Israelis to leave Palestine, and they don't do it.

       What are the sanctions that have been put in place to make sure Rwanda actually leaves DRC? I have a view that maybe that is what is going to begin the process towards peace in the region. Has the U.S. any intention of applying sanctions to Rwanda for failing to move its troops from DRC?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, what we have now is we have an agreement in place where Rwanda has in writing committed to leaving the DRC. At the same time, we have a commitment in writing where President Kabila has committed to addressing Rwanda's security concerns. We will look at this document, and we will hold the parties to the words of the document and the spirit behind the document, believing that it is what is needed to bring peace in the region. We will continue to engage both publicly and privately with the parties to express to them what the desired outcome is and should be. We will also speak to them regarding what we believe the consequences of inaction will be.

       I do not want to go into details publicly in that regard, but I think what you can see and can expect to see from the United States is a country that will be engaged with the parties in the region, will work with South Africa as the broker of the peace agreement to find a way to move this process forward. Because, again, the time has come where we need to find lasting peace in the region so that the people of the Congo, as well as the people of Rwanda, no longer suffer.

       Q Sonya Ross, AP World Services. Could you give some idea of how much time you're willing to allow to see signs of cooperation with the tribunal? And how small a sign are you looking for from these countries? Obviously, the largest sign would be arrest and capture, but what is the most minor step they could take that you would see as an encouraging sign of cooperation with the tribunal?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, I think the most minor step that the countries can take is to begin to aggressively seek and search for those that are indicted to see if they are within their country.

       Another sign that they can take is information sharing. This is a regional problem, and we need to talk to one another. The states in the region can share information with us, with the other states, with the tribunal as to the movements of these organizations and these individuals and their possible whereabouts.

       But, again, obviously, at the end of the day, if we really want to make progress, the key is apprehension. And these states need to take the steps to arrest these individuals if they are found to be in their territory. If they are not found to be in their territory, they need to make it clear and publicly known that their country is not a safe haven for these individuals, and if that they happened to cross their borders, they will be arrested and transferred to Arusha.

       Q Any time line?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, the time line -- the time line is, again, we believe that the action needs to begin right away. There is an ambitious time line set forth in the peace agreement between Rwanda and the Congo, but we're not limiting ourselves to the operation of that time line. We want to see it begin immediately. If the time line passes, we continue to expect to see action, not only from the parties to the accord but the neighboring states, such as the Republic of the Congo, Angola, Gabon, Zambia, whatever country it may be.

       MODERATOR: Jim?

       Q Sir, you mentioned that the ex-FAR/Interahamwe people were -- had a kind of safe haven in Angola or were going into Angola. Do you have any proof or evidence that they also do that with Zimbabwe? And on this trip, did you meet with any Angolan officials or Zimbabwean officials?

       AMB. PROSPER: On this trip I only met with the -- President Kabila and his officials, and I crossed the river and went to the Republic of the Congo and met with the president there and other government officials.

       We view this as a regional problem. We view this as a situation where the leadership of the ex-FAR/Interahamwe, those that are indicted, are mobile. They frequent not only the Democratic Republic of the Congo but the Congo-Brazzaville. They'll frequent parts of Angola. And sometimes it's without the government knowledge or support. And what we're looking for is we're looking for the governments to become aggressive in the region, to begin to work with us, to work with the tribunal, to seek these individuals.

       We will take this and we are prepared to take this to other states, because, again, what we want to do is make the entire area inhospitable. We have not singled out a particular country for bad behavior. What we're singling out countries for is that "Hey, there's a possibility that these individuals may be in your country. We want to work with you to apprehend them and transfer them to Arusha, so that we can stabilize the region."

       MODERATOR: The gentleman over here.

       Q Hi. Jeff Morrissey (sp), Sub-Equatorial Africa Defence Monitor. There are people -- I'm sure many in this room, actually -- who say that part of the problem in the region is the lack of democracy in Rwanda itself, and I'm wondering what you've done to address that issue as well.

       AMB. PROSPER: The problem that Rwanda has faced since the genocide has been one that is complex on many levels. Obviously, the security issue is a primary concern, not only for Rwanda but for the region. The justice issue is one that has been of concern for Rwanda, the region and the international community.

       We do want to see continued movement towards democratization of Rwanda. We have been working through our development agencies, USAID and others, to promote the rule of law, promote democracy, promote an electoral process in Rwanda.

       At the same time, we recognize the security issues that we are trying to address. We see that it is not something that can be fixed overnight, but we need a concerted effort, working with the government, to make it happen.

       We believe that the Rwandans know what our desires are, as far as seeking a full transition into full democracy, and they know that we're willing to work with them.

       But one of our primary issues that we want to address immediately is this question of security so that we can bring stability to the region.

       Q I actually have a question from the other side of the continent, if I may. About a month ago, I guess, Senator Feingold called for, in a statement opening up House hearings, called for a war crimes tribunal for Charles Taylor, the head of Liberia. I know the administration has been sharply -- indeed, harshly -- critical of Taylor. Is it the administration's position that there should be a war crimes tribunal for Charles Taylor?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, Charles Taylor's activities in Western Africa have obviously crossed borders and have focused in Sierra Leone. We have been a leading supporter of the Special Court in Sierra Leone. When we look at the Special Court of Sierra Leone, we see that it has jurisdiction for any offenses committed by any individual within that territory. We'll look to the prosecutor to follow the evidence where it may lead. Whether we will seek to create an additional court that is specifically focused on Charles Taylor, that's -- I'm not wiling to speculate at this time regarding this. But what I can say is that we continue to watch closely and speak out on the -- regarding the actions of Charles Taylor. And we do believe that steps need to be taken in order to bring reform not only to Liberia, but we need to see some accountability for the events in Sierra Leone.

       Q Can I just follow up? The question of a special court for Charles Taylor notwithstanding, does the administration -- would the administration be prepared to characterize Taylor himself as a war criminal, given his regional role -- Sierra Leone, the Mano River conflicts -- as well as all the horrible history in Liberia itself?

       AMB. PROSPER: I think we are prepared to characterize Charles Taylor as a -- a problem and a source of destabilization in the region. I think a legal characterization as to what he may have done, we'll leave it up to the courts.

       Q Adu-Asare, AfricaNewscast. Back to Rwanda/Congo. Is there a time frame within which the rest of the world might expect the movement -- departure of Rwandan troops from DRC soil? And while we are trying to do this, would it be reasonable for the U.N. to station peacekeepers as a buffer between Rwanda and DRC if Rwanda would pull its troops back, then we insert the U.N.? Would that be a reasonable suggestion to make?

       AMB. PROSPER: Regarding the peacekeepers, we are in the process of studying the role that the MONUC peacekeepers should play. We know that the South Africans are prepared to send personnel into the Congo. We will have to see how that all develops. The peace agreement is still fresh and we are still defining the various roles to play. But this is something that will be taken up and addressed during the month of August, not only in capitals, but in New York.

       Regarding the timetable, according to the peace agreement accord that has been reached, the Rwandans are to begin withdrawing at the same time or simultaneous to the government of the Congo taking steps to demobilize and disarm the forces that are in there. So what we want to see -- again, recognizing that this is an ambitious agenda that has been set -- we want to see a beginning of the process. We want to see a beginning of the disarmament, which will lead to a beginning of the withdrawal. And we will continue to work with the parties to see that this occurs.

       Q A follow-up. You said that the U.S. would be interested in expanding the judges in Arusha. Is there a dollar figure you can associate with that? Is there a certain amount that the State Department is willing to -- or has expressed an interest in expanding our support of that? You said it was an issue that was going to be brought up before the Security Council.

       AMB. PROSPER: What we are doing in Security Council now is we are discussing this precise issue, how much it will cost. We are prepared to -- the United States is prepared to agree to a complement of 18 judges, new judges, as a pool for the Tribunal for Rwanda, recognizing that a limited number will be used at a given time, perhaps four, six, nine, depending on the immediate need. We are prepared to do this. We have gone back to the tribunal and asked for a disciplined budget to get a understanding of how much it will cost.

       We do believe, again, that this is necessary. The monies will have to be found in order to make this possible, not only so that the tribunal can move forward in a more efficient manner to bring justice for those who committed genocide in Rwanda, but also because we view the tribunal as a critical player or component in bringing peace and stability in the region.

       Q Adu-Asare. At the point, at the political moment when Paul Kagame and his forces chased out the Hutu forces from Rwanda, there was a report about missing 200,000 Hutus.

       I believe this was in 1997 or thereabouts. Up to this point, there hasn't been any definitive message as to what happened to those 200,000 people. Is there a chance that there can be an investigation into this issue?

       AMB. PROSPER: We have called for an investigation into the events in the Eastern Congo, not only the event that you're discussing, but the recent events in Kisagani a month and a half, two months ago. During my trip to Kinshasa, this was an issue of discussion with President Kabila. In Rome, back in middle of July, I met with President Kagame; we discussed this issue.

       I do believe that the question of what has taken place in the Eastern Congo and the suffering of the people over the years will be a question that we will need to address as a member of the international community and as the international community and the region as a whole. In order to do that, obviously, we must first bring peace and stability to the Congo; we must end the fighting, end the killing and atrocities that are -- have taken place.

       Q If you wouldn't mind, what was Paul Kagame's response during the discussion in Rome that you just mentioned?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, I'm not going to go into details as to the response. But let me put it this way. He clearly understood the level of concern that we had regarding the events in Kisangani. And we mutually agreed that there needs to be accountability, and that we need to also look at the conduct of the parties within the Eastern Congo, some of the other forces that are there. Beyond that, I'm not prepared to go into details as to what he said, but we did make it clear that we believe there needs to be an investigation, they need to support an investigation, and we need to determine exactly what happened and hold the perpetrators accountable.

       Q In addition to, of course, the governments of Rwanda and Congo, there are in Congo rebel groups of considerable power and authority. How essential are they, RCD, Bemba's group also, how essential are they to this roundup of Interahamwe? Because there are alliances that exist between these groups and the ex-FAR and the Interahamwe. And are you in discussion, in fact, with the leadership of these rebel groups, who in many ways are as much a government as Kabila's Kinshasa government?

       AMB. PROSPER: We do believe that the other forces in the Congo are relevant and are essential to -- have an essential role to play in bringing peace to the Congo.

       That is why we are also looking for an inter-Congolese peace agreement -- or agreement that will reach an understanding as far as the structure of the government and the sharing of power within the various groups that are there. So, we're supportive of that. We know that there are steps being taken in that direction. We'll have to see where they end up.

       But in order for any of the additional forces that are in the Congo currently to be recognized as a credible participant and a credible player in the process, they have their responsibility. They need to assist in the apprehension and location of these individuals. And we expect that of them. We will send that message. We're not directly engaged with them, but this is a message, an overall message, that we're sending throughout the community.

       And again, one of the purposes of our reward campaign was not only to actually get the information to bring these people into justice, but it was to send a strong and powerful message that the situation has changed, that we all must work together to bring these people into custody.

       When I was in Kinshasa last week, President Kabila was publicly supportive of this. His minister for human rights joined me in a press conference where he affirmed the government's determination to work with us. They announced that they would create a special war crimes commission to follow this particular issue. And from there, we're going to look to the government in Kinshasa to work with us and help us in persuading the other actors in the region that they have a responsibility and a role to play.

       Q I'm sorry for taking too much of your time, but these are (press?) moments. This is Adu-Asare. If you go back to Sierra Leone, how would you characterize the current status of the war tribunal -- war crimes tribunal?

       AMB. PROSPER: It is in its infancy, as I would describe it. The team is arriving, basically as we speak. The prosecutor should be on the ground now with a small staff. The judges have recently been appointed to the process. The registrar has been on the ground for a few weeks now, coordinating the administrative aspect of the special court for Sierra Leone. We hope that by mid-fall enough of an infrastructure will be in place that will allow the court, the special court, to begin doing its real work of investigating the abuses that have occurred there since 1996 and begin to point the finger of accusation where it belongs and bring those who need to be held accountable before the court.

       MODERATOR: More questions to --

       Q General one.

       AMB. PROSPER: General?

       Q Yeah. Dobra Kosavic (ph), Belgrade daily Vecernje Novosti.

       Can you please explain how it comes that the United States is so supportive of ad hoc tribunals like for Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia and so unsupportive of permanent international crimes court?

       AMB. PROSPER: I think the important point to make here is that we are supportive of seeking accountability for war crimes and atrocities as they occur around the world. I think our commitment cannot be questioned, based on our -- not only our -- the history of our efforts, but our current efforts globally.

       The International Criminal Court is a court -- a document, a treaty, with which we have a problem. We believe that it is flawed. We believe, though, that it is -- the idea is noble. It was a noble idea. It was a noble effort to bring something into being. But in its implementation and its creation, errors occurred along the way that made it a process that is one that is unchecked, that is ripe for abuse, politicization and exploitation.

       What do I mean by that? When you look at the ad hoc tribunals, they were created after intensive debate in New York and elsewhere as to the appropriateness of creating these ad hoc tribunals and whether or not -- or questioning what the timing of launching such a tribunal should be. It took into consideration all the various dynamics that were occurring in the region and internationally. So, it was a thought-out process. The jurisdiction of the courts were thought out.

       The problem with the ICC is that it leaves all this power in the hands of an individual. In short, an individual can essentially make the decision as to whether or not to immerse him or herself into a hot spot in the world, into a conflict, without the benefit of the debate that takes place in New York to see whether or not this is the right response and whether or not it will further the objectives of bringing peace and stability rather than harm.

       So, in putting this power into the hands of an individual, we have a problem with that. The individual can be one that for his or her own political agenda or personal reasons, he or she may launch an investigation into a particular situation that is one that is not based on law and facts, but one that is based on political preferences and bias.

       Again, our view is that it is an unchecked process that leaves too much power in the hands of the individual with no oversight. And therefore, we cannot support this institution.

       We are prepared, however, to work with the states where these war crimes occur to build the capacity so that they can address these problems themselves. If it's a question of political will, we are prepared to try to change and shape the political will in these various parts of the world.

       If there's a clear absence of political will, then we are prepared to act responsibly in the Security Council in order to take measures that will bring not only justice and accountability, but peace and stability.

       MODERATOR: A final question?

       Q Adu-Asare. In as far as U.S. interests goes, your response is very adequate. But I doubt if the rest of the world would agree to your rationalization of it. Why couldn't U.S. stay in there, be part of it and attempt to change it from the inside as opposed to staying apart?

       AMB. PROSPER: Well, we tried. We tried from 1995 to change it, up till Rome in 1998 where we were not successful. After Rome of 1998, we again tried; we went to New York for all the preparatory commissions to try to change it. We could not do it. We just did not have a meeting of the minds with the supporters of the ICC.

       This year, when the ICC came into force on April 11th with enough -- actually, when ICC received enough ratifications on April 11th and came into force on July 1st, the opportunity for the United States or a non-party state to influence the process went away, because now only party states, those who have ratified the treaty, can actually play within the treaty, influence the process, influence the court.

       We have always said that before we can send it for ratification, we need to see some changes. President Clinton, before leaving office, he informed -- or suggested to President Bush that he not send it up for ratification. He said -- President Clinton clearly said publicly that he believed the treaty to be flawed and needs significant changes in order for it to be sent to the Senate, and he recommends that it not be sent.

       So therefore, we no longer have the opportunity to influence it. Therefore, we've decided to -- rather than wage war against the ICC, we will detach ourselves from the process, we will respect the right of others to belong to the ICC, we just hope they respect our right not to be part of it.

       MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much, Ambassador Prosper.

       Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.