INTRODUCTION
In July 1994, following the tragic disappearance of President Juvénal HAVYARIMANA, Rwanda was
plunged into a bloody crisis which dumped on Zaire, in its regions (provinces) of North Kivu and South
Kivu, a population of more than 2,500. 000 Refugees.
This human surge unprecedented in the history of humanity, in the aforementioned regions, causes
ecological damage, immeasurable, completely destroys the economic and social fabric, installed a
persistent insecurity, creates a deep hostility between the local populations and the refugees. ,
exacerbates inter-ethnic conflicts and raises even more acutely the problem of nationality in this part of
Zairian territory currently DR Congo.
Despite the diplomatic efforts made by Zaire, currently the DR Congo, the various agreements it has
concluded with Rwanda and the commitments of the international community for a peaceful settlement
of the issue of refugees as well as reparation for the damage. Suffered, tensions have only accumulated
to reach their climax with the recent aggressions, under the cover of a fictitious tribe, the
Banyamurenge, by the Rwandan Patriotic Army, the Burundian Armed Forces and the Ugandan Army
(NRA).
Faced with this situation, the ingredients of which certified in 1994 that it involved the danger of an
imminent explosion, the High Council of the Republic - Transitional Parliament of Zaire Currently DR
Congo (HCR-PT), in accordance with its constitutional prerogatives, has took initiatives for a just and
lasting solution.
This petition highlights the point of view of Zaire currently DR Congo, the duplicity of Rwanda and the
equivocal behavior of the international community at each stage of the crisis as well as the position of
the Congolese peoples.
VI. RWANDAN AND BURUNDIAN REFUGEES
1. In July 1994 Zaire currently DR Congo on its territory, in the regions (provinces) of North Kivu and
South Kivu about 3,000,000 Rwandan and Burundian refugees, the massive and prolonged presence of
these refugees had, in this part country, detrimental effects on:
a) The environment: serious degradation due to deforestation, the destruction of the Virunga and
Kahuzu-Biega national parks and the poaching of rare and protected species, the number of which hab) Agriculture and livestock: occupation of arable land, destruction of crops and consumption of seeds;
c) Basic infrastructure: considerable damage to roads, ports, airports, schools, hospitals, water sources,
outbreak of epidemics;
d) the economy: the herd in North Kivu, which was 450,000 heads, has fallen to 30,000; the introduction
of the US dollar into the local market by the arrival of several humanitarian organizations has caused the
erosion of the currency, the dizzying rise in the prices of everyday consumer goods and the decline in
the purchasing power of the population;
e) security: of people and goods has become very precarious
2.This presence was also a source of suspicions, misunderstandings and reciprocal accusations which
recently characterize relations between Zaire currently the DR Congo and on the one hand, Rwanda and
Burundi on the other hand,
3. with a view to effective management of the many thorny problems raised by this human tragedy.
Zaire currently the DR Congo has favored dialogues based on one of the general principles of
international law, namely the peaceful settlement of disputes. This is how he undertook consultations
sometimes with Rwanda alone, sometimes with it and the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, sometimes also with Burundi.
3.1. Already in July 1994. The head of state of Zaire currently DR Congo had met in Mauritius, the
president of Rwanda, Mr.
BIZIMUNGU with whom an agreement had been signed, underlining the will of the two countries to
settle the problem of refugees by peaceful means.
3.2. On September 1, 1994 in Goma, following a ministerial meeting between the Zairian and Rwandan
authorities, three mixed sub-committees responsible respectively for property, repatriation and mutual
security were created,
3.3. On October 24, 1994, Zaire, currently the DR Congo, signed in Kinshasa a tripartite agreement with
Rwanda and the High Commission for Refugees on the repatriation of Rwandan refugees.
3.4. On January 27, 1995, Zaire currently the DR Congo and High Commission for Refugees signed in
Kinshasa, the cooperation agreement for the search for solutions to the security problems in the refugee
camps,
3.5. As part of the execution of the refugee return program, Zaire currently the DR Congo signed with
the High Commission for Refugees and Rwanda, on September 25 and December 20, 1995, the
agreements relating to the necessary incentive measures to repatriation.
3.6. On August 22, 1996, following the working visit of the Prime Minister of Zaire to Kigali, an
agreement was signed with the Rwandan authorities to reactivate the sub-committees created on
September 1, 1994 in Goma and on June 10 in Bujumbura,3.7. In addition to the various legal instruments above, it should be noted the active participation of
Zaire currently the DR Congo in the Cairo conference in Egypt and in the Tunis meeting in Tunisia jointly
initiated by presidents MOBUTU, MUSEVENI and former presidents CARTER and ALI HASSAN MWINYI.
3.8. At the same time as these agreements and meetings, the Zairian Government has made efforts to
sensitize the international community on the Rwandan issue in order to make it accept the repatriation
of refugees as the only lasting solution for the restoration of peace and security in the sub-region. Great
Lakes region.
To this end, Zaire currently the DR Congo has sent several requests to the Security Council of the
Organization of United Nations (UN) to:
1. The separation of the ex FAR and the Interahamwe in order to facilitate the return of refugees to their
country of origin;
2. The dispatch of an international force to ensure security in the camps;
3. That other lands of asylum be found for the Rwandan political leaders,
4. That the former soldiers and militiamen be neutralized;
5. That the UN create security zones inside Rwanda and organize the repatriation of refugees, in January
1995, at the Regional Summit of Heads of State and Government in Nairobi, Zaire currently the DR
Congo has requested the creation of humanitarian corridors for the repatriation of refugees from the
Zairian borders to the interior of Rwanda.
39. Anxious to respect its commitments concerning the safety of refugees as well as their awareness of
voluntary repatriation, Zaire currently the DR Congo, in accordance with the agreements concluded, has
in particular:
1. in the face of the silence of the United Nations, made available to the Office of the High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 1,500 troops to ensure security in the camp,
2. restricts the movement of refugees outside the camps;
3. Prohibit the exercise of commercial activities by refugees;
4. neutralize the intimidators of the refugees;
5. Cancels the lease contracts and the acquisition of movable and immovable property by the refugees;
6. Undertook the administrative closure of the Kibumba (North Kivu) and Nyangezi (South Kivu) camps
on February 13, 1996, respectively, in application of the Rwanda-Zaire and UNHCR tripartite agreement
of December 20, 1995,
7. Processed the handing over to the Rwandan government, on February 13, 1996, of military goods,
according to a list drawn up jointly and approved by the two parties in January 1996 in Kinshasa,. Transferred, with the assistance of the UNHCR, to other camps far from the borders the refugees
from the Panzi camps which, moreover, were firm;
9. Assists in the establishment of refugee committees in the camps to relay the information campaign
organized with the UNHCR.
4. Despite these obvious signs of its willingness and availability to work through the diplomatic channel
for the final solution of the issue of Rwandan refugees settled on its territory, Zaire currently the
DRCONGO, has only encountered arrogance and bad behavior with Rwanda. faith. This in full view of the
international community. On her part, he was paid in sign currency by demonization and indifference,
bordering on complicity in silence in the face of the tragedy he has been experiencing to this day.
5. In fact, capitalizing on the bad conscience of the international community which allowed the 1994
genocide to be perpetrated, Rwanda has trampled on all the agreements concluded with it, contenting
itself with declarations of good intentions without a future.
5.1. This is how he did not embarrass himself to gradually disqualify the UNHCR, ICRC, NGOs, UNAMIR,
UN and O.U.A, perceived as embarrassing witnesses to be removed from its territory.
5.2 Likewise, as if to discourage the repatriation of refugees, the authorities of Kigali did not prevent
themselves from committing serious acts of intimidation such as the massacres of Kibeho, Kinama,
Makobola, Wimbi, kanyaboyonga, kasika and 'Island of Wawe as well as the arbitrary arrest of about 600
Hutus per week and the detention of nearly 60,000 people allegedly genocidal, without this moving
anyone unduly across the world.
5.3 In addition, the organization of the awareness campaign for returning refugees and cross-border
visits to which he had committed under the Geneva tripartite agreement in December 1995, has been
postponed indefinitely.
5.4 Neither the fact-finding visits by representatives of the refugees to their communes of origin for the
purpose of informing other refugees about the real security conditions prevailing in Rwanda, nor the
solemn commitment not to allow the use of the national territory to serve as a base for incursions or
attacks by armed groups against another country, nothing that was decided at the Cairo conference was
respected by the Rwandan government. This pushed the self-righteousness to the point of calling into
question the sacrosanct principle of the inviolability of the borders inherited from colonization
enshrined in the O.U.A. it even attacks refugee camps that are under international protection without
any country or organization condemning such a violation of humanitarian law.
5.5 In order to gain the compassion of the world and cover all these crimes and shortcomings, Rwanda
has taken to blaming itself in gratuitous accusations against Zaire.
6. As for the international community, although it is committed, has many mistakes, on the one hand, to
assist countries of asylum to meet the essential needs of refugees, and, on the other hand, to provide
Her support for donor initiatives aimed at helping these countries to redress the damage suffered result of the presence of refugees in their territories, all the promises she made to zaire in this regard
have remained unfulfilled.
6.1 The round table of donors to finance the program (Great Lakes Incentives) drawn up by the UNDP
and the UNHCR within the framework of the action plans resulting from the Bujumbura conference of
12 to 15 February 1995, with a view to rehabilitating damaged areas in asylum countries (Zaire,
Tanzania, Burundu), has never been held.
6.2 Zaire which, with its Rwandan refugees (1,100,000), Burundians (160,000), Angolans, Sudanese, and
others (200,000), nevertheless constitutes the main country of asylum in South Africa, does not benefit,
as it is must, international solidarity commensurate with its hospitality and the generosity of its
populations, today stricken and frustrated.
6.3 As a bonus, it has passed as if by magic from the status of victim to that of accused both at the level
of the United Nations and other international forums including the European Parliament and the ACP�European Union Joint Assembly.
All these international organizations and institutions have distinguished themselves with numerous
resolutions condemning Zaire,
Indeed, since the influx of refugees into Zaire, some have argued that:
- It would train soldiers of the ex-Rwandan Armed Forces (ex-FAR) which it would serve as a launching
pad to destabilize Rwanda,
- It would maintain an important arms traffic in the Great Lakes region, and
- He would support the armed element of Mr. Leonard NYANGOMA.
6.3.1 In this regard, if Zaire was training the ex-FAR to attack Rwanda, why are they not taking part in
the fighting currently opposing the Zairian Armed Forces to Rwandan troops in Kivu?
6.3.2 Then, in its recently published report, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry into Arms
Trafficking in the Great Lakes Region has just made the following important revelations:
A. Arms trafficking in this region is more businessmen and commercial rather than a political enterprise
of deliberately arming assault troops,
B. this traffic is a network that stretches from South Africa to Eastern Europe, including Tanzania,
Uganda and the Sudan.
6.3.3 Finally, unless you are in bad faith so as not to recognize him, Mr. NYANGOMA is a Burundian and
operated inside this country.
6.4 Despite these realities and the denials of the Zaire government, all these accusations unfortunately
found a favorable response to the General Secretariat and the United Nations Security Council since
three important resolutions were adopted against Zaire, namely:Resolution 1011 (1995) consecrating the lifting of the arms embargo on Rwanda, on the grounds that
the international community should allow this country to defend itself against any aggression coming
from Zaire,
- resolution 1013 (1995) on the creation of the international commission to investigate arms trafficking
in the Great Lakes region,
- Resolution 1053 (1996) on the deployment of United Nations observers at ports, airports and at the
borders of countries in the Great Lakes region.
All these resolutions have demonstrated the mismanagement of the Rwandan refugee case file in Zaire,
currently the DR Congo, by the United Nations.
Indeed, while they knew the sub-region of the great lakes under high tension, the United Nations
allowed one of the parties, Rwanda, to acquire the means of war. Meanwhile, placed under close
surveillance through the U.N.O. observer mission.
Moreover, did Rwanda not refuse the deployment of these observers on its territory while it also
rejected the signing of a non-aggression pact between the states of the sub-region of? 'Central Africa ?
Is this not once again proof of premeditated acts forming part of a plan to destabilize eastern Zaire,
currently the DRC in the absence of the acceptance by its leaders of the settlement of Hutu refugees? in
their country as a solution to the Rwandan drama?
6.5 Regarding this establishment, the steps taken in this direction by the Secretary General of the United
Nations to the High Commissioner for Refugees, are edifying. The latter will also refer the matter to the
head of the Zairian delegation during the work of the second meeting of the monitoring committee of
the Bujumbura action plan, held from February 26 to March 2, 1996 in Addis Ababa. The categorical
refusal by the Republic of Zaire to the project to create a (Hutu land) on its territory, although notified to
the highest authority of the United Nations, the UNHCR and the OAU, has not prevented some of its
bilateral and multilateral partners to continue to support this Machiavellian plan in complicity with
Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda.
7. For their part, the European Parliament and the Joint Assembly have taken a regrettable habit of
voting on resolutions incriminating Zaire for facts that are sometimes not verified or for which it does
not bear responsibility. This frustrates the Zairians even more and pushes them to extremes. In this
sense, we can only deplore the motion for a resolution on the situation of refugees in eastern Zaire,
currently the DRC, initiated by the Green group at the October 1996 session.
8. Having been aware that the authorities in Kigali did not want the repatriation of refugees and faced
with the resignation of the international community, the Zairian government was forced to protect its
own population from the harmful effects of the massive influx of refugees. refugees, to have recourse to
the benefit of article 3 Z of resolution No. 2312 (22) of September 14, 1967
on asylum rights to return 16,000 Rwandan refugees to the border in August 1995.