YouSaid · the spoken record

Mudenge

lines on the record: 68
first: 1996-10-10
most recent: 2001-12-14
sittings or episodes: 4
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Sll'V.4437 In conclusion, I wish to advise that my Government intends in due course to submit through your good offices a detailed rebuttal of the innuendos and inaccuracies with which this hurriedly drawn Zimbabwe-bashing pamphlet is replete.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“If the Council accepts this notion, then it should also be prepared to accept the inherent implication that the Council itself, through what appears to outsiders to be an overcautious approach, is also deliberately prolonging the war. To avoid any doubt, I now wish to restate my country's readiness to pull out of the Democratic Republic of the Congo - in accordance with the provisions of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and whenever requested by the Democratic Republic of the Congo Government to do so. Either of the aforementioned conditions is sufficient to cause an immediate and total withdrawal of my country's troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“We have repeatedly brought our concerns to the attention of the Council directly, through the Political Committee, through our contacts with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and numerous other interlocutors. Notwithstanding our many appeals and our oft stated deep disappointment at the hesitation of the United Nations in deploying sufficient peacekeepers, it is only now that we are beginning to see the initial stages of phase III deployment being initiated. There is therefore no truth whatsoever in the Panel's speculative assertion that our continued presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is intended to prolong the war for the economic benefit of Zimbabwe.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The speculation that Zimbabwe will be tempted to maintain a sizeable military presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to protect its investments is maliciously thrown into the report in spite of my country's numerous, authoritative and binding commitments made on several occasions under the Lusaka Agreement, during meetings of the Political Committee, to the Security Council and in countless bilateral discussions within Africa, SADC and with some members of this Council. Since the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed, Zimbabwe has been pleading with the Security Council to urgently deploy a meaningful peacekeeping contingent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in order to guarantee that country's security after the withdrawal of foreign forces.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“If all companies and countries adopted a similar policy in their business practices in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it would indeed be revolutionary and would set new standards in development cooperation. We are proud of our joint ventures with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and challenge all other investors to follow our example for the good of the Congolese nation. It is this inherent fairness of the structure of these joint venture agreements that will protect Zimbabwe's investment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and not the presence of the Zimbabwe army.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The first, which is correct, is that the joint ventures - except those in civil aviation - have not yet matured or become profitable. We have reaped no profits. We have sunk capital that may or may not prove profitable. Mining is a risky business. There are no guarantees of success in spite of the promising prospects. This is not illegal exploitation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; it is investment in that country. In all our joint ventures, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has at least 51 per cent of the shares and a majority on the board of directors. These agreements can be renegotiated at any time if any of the parties requests such a renegotiation.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“In the next instance, Zimbabwe is said to be paying millions from its own resources to sustain its intervention. It is therefore alleged that Zimbabwe has been miserably impoverished by its intervention to a point where it can no longer meet its balance of payments. Either Zimbabwe is presently benefiting, or it is not. The report should not be schizophrenic about this. Whether we are benefiting or not is discussed elsewhere, in paragraph 58 of the report, where it says "As Zimbabwe's joint ventures in mining and timber begin to mature and become profitable, it may be tempted to retain a sizeable military presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo". "Tempted" - in future. Two important points are made here.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The crisis of land rights, mineral rights and other such forms of alienation of indigenous people from their natural resources in southern Africa and other developing nations might benefit from the application of such a progressive concept. S/l'VA437 We may also wish to extend this new-found morality in treaty-making to those agreements signed by the victors of World War One and World War Two. The possibilities opened by such a line of enquiry, if pursued objectively, may prove to be most salubrious indeed. What is wicked and dishonest would be to apply it selectively. The Panel must make up its mind about how it intends to characterize Zimbabwe's presence in the Congo. In one instance, Zimbabweans are perceived as pirates plundering every mineral resource that catches their eye.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The Panel calls on the Security Council to create a special commission that would revise and review all concessions, commercial agreements and contracts signed during President Laurent Kabila's rule. I find this conclusion intriguing indeed. The concept of unequal treaties, which the panel introduces, is very fascinating. My Government is willing to cooperate with and assist the Council in fully developing and exploring this concept so that it is not used selectively but can be universally applicable. It may very well be found that most agreements signed with African chiefs by colonial representatives under false pretences, if reviewed by such a committee established by this Council, are invalid.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Yet the institutions established by the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the United Nations - the Joint Military Commission and MONUC, respectively - have not verified this alleged support for the FDD. This is one of several despicable attempts by our detractors to sour relations between Zimbabwe and South Africa. Zimbabwe would never undermine the facilitation efforts by South Africa in the Burundi peace process. Zimbabwe and South Africa are solid partners and brothers in SADC. I wish therefore to lay to rest the ghost of those who think they can succeed in tearing us asunder. Let me now turn to the conclusions and recommendations of the Panel.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“However, his association with the United Kingdom is conveniently not mentioned. In the case of Billy Rautenbach, his family has had business interests in the region, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for over 30 years. These business interests, which predate this current conflict, are omitted, creating the impression that his business interests in the Congo began only with Zimbabwe's intervention in that country. These are private businessmen pursuing their own interests like other private businessmen from around the world. They happen to be residents in my country. They are citizens of other countries. My delegation finds it obscene for this report to allege that Zimbabwe is assisting and supplying arms to the FDD rebels from Burundi.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The same cannot be said of the behind-the-scene deals that certain Western Governments and companies are concluding with the rebels, as disclosed in the earlier report. The current report is therefore a smokescreen meant to conceal the shadowy activities of Western companies, while turning the spotlight on Zimbabwe's perfectly legal joint ventures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Panel has negatively portrayed the relationships with Zimbabwe of certain individuals doing business in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but has left out certain facts and other significant connections of these individuals with other countries. The case in point is that of John Bredenkamp and Billy Rautenbach. The Council will be interested to know that John Bredenkamp has been publicly listed among the 100 wealthiest men in the United Kingdom.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Zimbabwe merely responded positively to the offer. The Democratic Republic of the Congo invited its allies in joint ventures in the hope of raising resources to support the whole effort and of strengthening economic cooperation within the SADC family. The phenomenon of joint ventures with other countries is prevalent in SADC. Zimbabwe has joint ventures with countries like Malawi, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique. Areas covered include the hospitality sector, banking and finance, and transport. Even the Democratic Republic of the Congo has joint ventures with other SADC countries other than the three allies, indeed, as Minister Karubi said, with countries throughout the world.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Sll'V.4437 It is therefore mischievous to suggest that we would demand compensation from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, because we regard it a bounden duty and moral obligation to return the favour done for us by other African countries. In the past, we have rendered assistance within this framework to our brothers in Mozambique. We spent seven years in Mozambique. We were paid nothing and we demanded nothing. We are continuing to do so today in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and we will do so in the future, should we be called upon and are able to do so. If I may refer to the issue of our joint ventures with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Council may wish to know that this was a Congolese idea and that it was they who decided on the shareholding structure of the ventures.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The report alleges that the allies of the Democratic Republic of the Congo demanded compensation from the Government for their assistance. The simple answer is we did no such thing. This is yet another attempt at tarnishing my country's image and demeaning and debasing our noble intervention. Within SADC there is a tradition of coming to each other's assistance, and Zimbabwe itself has been one of the beneficiaries of this spirit of solidarity and pan-Africanism. Many countries in the region made sacrifices for Zimbabwe's independence. We did not promise or pay them anything; neither did they demand compensation.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Those, like my colleagues from the Southern African Development Community (SADC), who are willing to be objective see it differently. I wish, with the Council's permission, to submit a copy of the communique of the SADC Ministerial Task Force on developments in Zimbabwe issued this week, on 11 December 2001, and request that it be circulated as a document of the Security Council. I wish in particular to draw the Council's attention to paragraph 11 of the communique, in which the SADC Ministers "expressed their concern at distorted and negative perceptions of Zimbabwe projected by the international and regional media". If they had read this addendum's reference to the internal situation in Zimbabwe, I have no doubt that they would have added it to the list of those purveying "distorted and negative perceptions of Zimbabwe".”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“However, we do not control the prices of our minerals and metals, which have remained depressed for some time. And, of course, we have been under informal sanctions by the international financial institutions and some countries for the last two years because of our land reform programme and our decision to assist our brothers and sisters of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But the puny, pathetic picture of Zimbabwe painted by the addendum is the wishful thinking of our detractors, which should have no place in such a report. In spite of these endeavours to caricature Zimbabwe's internal situation, I can assure the Council that the situation as the Panel depicts it is largely a figment of a fertile imagination.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“It is a trove of mineral wealth, which we are only beginning to survey and exploit systematically and scientifically. Zimbabwe is now the third largest platinum producer in the world and is likely to move to spot number two in three years' time. As a result of recent geological surveys, it has been established that Zimbabwe has a number of diamond-bearing Kimberlite pipes. There is, if I may add, a near Wild West frenzy among prospectors from around the world regarding these pipes. Already Rio Tinto has tested the viability of one of its claims and full exploitation begins early in the new year. Others are at various stages in this exciting development. We remain and we shall continue for some time to be a major mining country in our own right.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“To avoid any lingering doubt the Supreme Court in Zimbabwe has recently pronounced the land reform programme to be not only legal and constitutional, but to have been carried out in accordance with the rule of law. In view of the fandango of lies and falsehoods peddled by purveyors of malice against my country, I doubt if the judgement is widely known around the world. The report further alleges that the failing Zimbabwe mining industry acted as a motivational factor in my country's decision to intervene in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Currently, Zimbabwe exploits over 30 different types of minerals that include platinum, gold, chrome, cobalt, copper, tin and zinc. My country, God be praised, is blessed by having a geological formation known to experts as the Great Dyke.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“But the facts are that the fast-track land reform programme referred to in this addendum started only in February 2000; yet the invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and our subsequent intervention took place in August 1998. The Security Council is aware of the fact that the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed in July 1999. What has an event that started in February 2000 got to do with issues covering the period 1998 and July 1999? Of course, let us not miss the agenda behind this addendum. It is to besmirch Zimbabwe. Hence, reference to land appropriation in this report is intended to induce negative sentiments towards Zimbabwe in international opinion, which is daily fed on manure as far as the land question in Zimbabwe is concerned.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“I find it intriguing that the Panel should have decided to hear evidence from the representatives of the 4,100 Commercial Farmers' Union, an organization that has absolutely no relevance to, and no expert knowledge about the illegal exploitation of the resources of, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But, of course, if the aim was S/l'VA437 to tap into anti-Zimbabwe Government sentiments, then the strategy is quite understandable and yielded the intended results. It is not surprising, therefore, that the land reform programme in my country, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has been dragged into this report.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“From Europe, we will invite some friendly countries, especially those that have avoided interfering in our internal affairs by, inter alia, desisting from funding the opposition, as some European countries have done. Last year, we had over 2000 journalists and tens of thousands of observers watching our general elections. But read the media and hear! Zimbabwe does not have a land "appropriation" policy, as the addendum puts it, but a land reform programme that has been declared legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. It is evil and wrong that a mere 4,100 white commercial farmers, mainly of British extraction, should own over 70 per cent of the best arable land in a country of 14 million black people. This is a relic of British colonialism.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Since 1980, Zimbabweans have exercised their democratic right to elect their leaders and representatives every five years, as demanded by the Constitution, in the 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000 general elections. Presidential elections were held in 1996 and new ones are scheduled for March this coming year. The reference to Zimbabwe as a one-party State is therefore untrue and malicious propaganda from the textbook of our detractors. Today, the two opposition parties have 57 of the 120 elected seats and before losing one in a by-election they had 58 seats. We are now preparing for our next presidential elections in March next year, to which we intend to invite international observers from SADC, the Economic Community of West African States, OAU/African Union, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“It is gratuitous and panders to the wishes and interests of those who vociferously asked that there be a second report to vilify Zimbabwe. For example, the report alleges the existence of one-party rule in Zimbabwe. This is a damned lie, an unashamed falsehood. Zimbabwe may have a dominant political party, but this does not translate into one-party rule. There are over 30 registered political parties in Zimbabwe today. It may interest the Council to know that Zimbabwe is the second-longest stable multi-party democracy in Africa, after Botswana. Zimbabwe, which became independent in an epoch-making general election in 1980, is still a multi-party democracy.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“My Government takes great exception to paragraph 76 of the report, which imports lock, stock and barrel the caricatures and grotesque and false misrepresentations of the situation in my country peddled daily on the Internet and in the media by those dedicated to demonizing, vilifying and ostracizing my country, as was triumphantly and gloatingly announced in the British House of Commons recently. We reject this lampooning of our country with contempt. It is unworthy of a United Nations document to use such patronizing and anti-Zimbabwe language. If I might ask: What has the internal situation in my country, as falsely painted by our enemies and repeated by the Panel, got to do with the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC? Nothing, absolutely nothing!”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“In this regard, the Summit reaffirmed its call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and commended the Governments of Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe for timeously providing troops to assist the Government and people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to defeat the illegal attempt by rebels and their allies to capture the capital city, Kinshasa, and other strategic areas." The legitimacy of Zimbabwe's military intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been further recognized and accepted by the OAU and by the Security Council in its resolutions 1234 (1999) and 1304 (2000), among others.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Subsequently, the SADC summit chaired by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, held in Mauritius on 13 and 14 September 1998, stated in paragraph 21 of its communique the following: "The Summit welcomed initiatives by SADC and its member States intended to assist the restoration of peace, security and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular the Victoria Falls and Pretoria initiatives.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Sll'V.4437 At that meeting, there was recognition that the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a SADC member State, had been invaded and that the sister countries of Uganda and Rwanda had deployed their forces as far west as Matadi and Kitona on the Atlantic seaboard in support of what they claimed was an internal rebellion. The ISDSC meeting unanimously recommended that SADC countries in a position to do so should immediately go to the assistance of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“There is only one Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which, in exercise of its right to self-defence as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, invited the SADC countries to come to its assistance in fending off aggression against its territory. The intervention followed the decision of a properly constituted extraordinary meeting of the Inter- State Defence and Security Committee (ISDSC) of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security. The ISDSC meeting was held in Harare from 17 to 18 August 1998 under the chairmanship of the Minister of Defence of Zambia, Mr. Chitalu M. Sampa.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“As a former Chairman of the Political Committee charged with the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, I appeal to the United Nations to expunge from all its documents such language, which has been rejected by the Political Committee as undermining the peace process. Whenever any of the parties to the Lusaka Process uses such phrases, he or she is immediately asked to withdraw and required to refer to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as provided for in the Lusaka Agreement. A representative of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) is always present at our meetings and it is therefore unacceptable that a United Nations Panel should be so insensitive on such an important issue - unless, of course, there is another agenda at play here.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Even the Security Council in its resolutions recognized and accepted this fact. My delegation therefore finds it unacceptable for this report to refer to the legitimate Government of the Congo as "the Kinshasa Government" or "the Government in Kinshasa". This language is reminiscent of the language used by the rebels prior to the signing of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement in July 1999. This language is an apologia for the invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We find it unacceptable that a United Nations document should serve as a propaganda mouthpiece for positions which are intolerable and have since been largely abandoned by their progenitors.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“But, of course, to the Panel that wrote the addendum, it seems he is only the President of the "Government in Kinshasa" and not that of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was established at the request of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, then led by the late President Laurent Desire Kabila. It must be recalled that the Government of the late President Laurent Kabila was accepted and recognized as the full, sovereign and legitimate Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Non-Aligned Movement, the United Nations and all other international organizations.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“After expressing appreciation for the African solidarity shown by Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia in responding to the request of the legitimate Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and after inviting and encouraging mutual beneficial economic cooperation between Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and referring to "our mutual projects, like the Senga Mines", among others, he had this to say: S/l'VA437 "The joint ventures between our two Governments are not to be confused with the looting of the mineral resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as is the case in the occupied zones of my country." He went on to say: "Other projects have already started on a strong footing, including the joint venture between the Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe and the Regie des Voies Aeriennes, its Congolese counterpart, the Air Zimbabwe and the Lignes Aeriennes Congolaises project, the National Railways of Zimbabwe and the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Du Congo, the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority and the Societe Nationale d'Electricite, to name just a few." He went on to invite experts from both sides to come up with "new creative projects that will benefit our two countries", adding that "we must accelerate the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding, which included free circulation of goods and people between our two countries." President Joseph Kabila concluded by saying: "The relationship between the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe in particular and the Southern African Development Community region in general must be a good example of integration and southern African cooperation." Who is better qualified to pronounce on the legality of the economic cooperation between Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo than the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo himself?”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Minister Karubi's observation is an echo of President Joseph Kabila's and, indeed, the Congolese people's position vis-a-vis the illegal exploitation of their natural resources. With the Council's permission, I will go down memory lane with the express object of reminding the Council of what transpired here on the occasion of the debate on the report of the United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 3 May 2001. On that occasion, my delegation submitted that President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had addressed the Parliament of Zimbabwe on 27 March 2001.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“So you cannot put Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia on par with Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda." But then the new report casts a slur and doubt on the legality and authority of the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1997. This offensive misadventure leads the Panel into dangerous waters. To blur the difference between legality and illegality, the document abandons the Security Council terms "invited" and "uninvited" countries and settles for the term "allies" of what it refers to as "the Kinshasa Government" or "Government in Kinshasa"- see paragraphs 70 and 71 of the addendum. I shall deal with the connotations of the latter phrase elsewhere in order to expose its subversive nature.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“Reacting to this report, the Information Minister of the Congo, the Honourable Kikaya Bin Karubi, rejected any suggestion that Angola, Namibia or Zimbabwe was looting the resources of the Congo. According to the Minister: "These were countries that came to our rescue in this war of aggression. Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia are here at the request of the Government and the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in the process we have signed legitimate agreements to go into business ventures, and these agreements exist with countries throughout the world. On the other hand, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi invaded our country and are looting the resources of the Congo and at the same time killing our people. More than 3 million have died as a result of this war.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“My submission will adhere to that wise, time-honoured saying and call a spade by no other name - it is a spade, not a "digging instrument". It is both a misnomer and a travesty of justice to try to pass off the document before us as an addendum to the April report by the United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In this addendum, the difference between a legal and an illegal business transaction has been abandoned. "Same difference", it seems to say. But, sadly for those who put the addendum together, the difference is not the same. The committee abandoned its terms of reference in pursuit of a new agenda of its own - or is it someone's private agenda?”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“At the outset, Sir, let me congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. My delegation welcomes the convening of this open debate on the addendum to the report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Having participated in the debate on the ground-breaking earlier report on the illegal exploitation of the resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on 3 May 2001, my delegation has requested the floor to express its views on the follow-up report before us. Mr. President, I know you are familiar with the African saying "Cash talk breaks no friendship", which is really a call for candid and frank discourse.”
2001-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4437 (2001) · source
“The positions as agreed by the members and declared by the parties are those positions that were declared, recorded and signed for on 8 April 2000 at Kampala. They are the positions that are found also in the Harare sub-plans. As far as the parties are concerned, there is no confusion as to which positions are intended, because they were initialled and signed for by every member. They are in documentary form, which I am sure the United Nations has had the advantage of possessing. So the positions are in no doubt.”
2001-02-22 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4282 (2001) · source
“The Political Committee, for its part, will have an opportunity to comment on and update some aspects of the report during our official private meetings with the Council later today. The eyes and the hopes of the Congolese nation are riveted on our proceedings today. We must give hope to the Congolese mothers and children. The situation brooks no delay. Let us all agree that enough is enough. The moment for inaction is past. This conflict chapter must be closed. Peace, yes peace, must return to the Congo.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“That is the least we can and must do for our brothers and sisters in the Congo. The Council is called upon to assume its responsibility and lead the way. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not use this opportunity to appeal to the Security Council to come to the financial assistance of the Joint Military Commission, a key institution in keeping the Lusaka peace process alive. The JMC is in dire financial straits and may have to shut down if assistance is not rendered as a matter of urgency. Finally, I wish to take note of the report of the Secretary-General (S/2001/128) of 12 February 2001, which covers some important developments since his last report to the Security Council. It contains a great deal of useful information and makes useful recommendations for the consideration of the Council.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“We are not saying that the Council should throw all caution to the wind; what we are urging is that it act urgently and decisively to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that it be willing to take calculated risks if need be - as it has done in Sierra Leone, as it has done in Kosovo and as it has done in East Timor. We ask the Council to enforce our renewed commitment to the peace process by taking bold and brave decisions: yes, why not inspire us by agreeing here and now to accelerate the implementation of phase III of the United Nations deployment? We must not let this chance slip away. The Congolese people look with great anticipation to the Council's actions, so that they may enjoy peace and progress as a sovereign and independent people.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“They eagerly invite and await a commensurate response from the Council, not only in assuming, with the necessary speed, its responsibilities under the Ceasefire Agreement but also in ensuring the full implementation of its own resolutions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular resolution 1291 (2000). We now have a unique opportunity to make tangible progress that would firmly set this process on the path to success. This is not the time to imagine that every light at the end of the tunnel in the Congo peace process is necessarily that of an approaching high- speed train. We must seize the moment to make progress. Let the Council increase confidence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo peace process by taking some bold and generous steps.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“Downsizing the force would be tantamount to amending resolution 1291 (2000) by the back door, through administrative fiat. That would be most unfortunate. We therefore appeal to the Security Council to reconsider the proposed figure for deployment under the new concept. If yesterday there were any doubts as to the sincerity and commitment of the parties to the Ceasefire Agreement, those doubts should now be dispelled. The parties have spoken in a very clear and unambiguous manner: they want peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and they want it now; furthermore, they are prepared to take some risks to attain it.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“The Lusaka summit was unequivocal in its expectation that the United Nations should respond with "the full and speedy deployment of military observers and related personnel to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as authorized by Security Council resolution 1291 (2000) of 24 February 2000". The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a vast country. It is necessary that MONUC be allowed to deploy the 5,537 men authorized under resolution 1291 (2000). Cutting the number to under 3,000, as is now being proposed under the new deployment concept, would certainly convey an impression of a lack of seriousness, if not of downright cynicism and a lack of sincerity and of commitment to peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I believe that one of the news agencies yesterday described the figure as "minuscule".”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“We hope, therefore, that hesitation and doubt will give way to renewed confidence in the peace process and that renewed confidence will translate into timely concrete actions in fulfilment of the responsibilities assigned to the United Nations under the Ceasefire Agreement and in numerous Security Council resolutions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We note with some concern in this regard, however, that the United Nations, under the new step- by-step, gradualist and minimalist concept of operations for MONUC, conveys an unfortunate impression of hesitancy and doubt about the peace process. The parties firmly believe that now is the time not for prevarication and doubt, but for rapid engagement in view of the positive prevailing circumstances.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“In View of the urgency that the parties attach to the commencement of the national dialogue, all the Congolese parties were urged to begin consultations amongst themselves and to cooperate fully with the facilitator. It is patently evident that the parties continue to take their obligations seriously and wish to take advantage of the current propitious turn of events to move the process even further and in more tangible ways. Both the Political Committee and the summit underlined their desire and determination to accelerate the pace of implementation of the peace process. It is in this frame of mind and with this expectation that we meet with the Security Council today as partners in the search for durable peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“Beyond reaffirming their commitment to the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement, the parties deliberated on and made significant progress on such critical issues as the disengagement and redeployment of forces and the inter-Congolese political negotiations. All the parties have now signed the sub-plans for disengagement, and the only two that are yet to issue the disengagement orders to their troops are expected to lodge them with the Joint Military Commission (JMC) and MONUC shortly. The preparations for the inter-Congolese dialogue are set to get underway in earnest any day now, whenever the facilitator, former President Sir Ketumile Masire, visits Kinshasa in response to the invitation extended to him by President Joseph Kabila.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“The guns have been silent on the front lines for more than three weeks now, and the speedy implementation of the process of disengagement and redeployment of forces, which all the parties have signed on to, could help sustain that silence for an even longer time. MONUC, by its own admission, is enjoying the cooperation of all the parties to the Agreement, and the hitherto thorny issue of the facilitator of the national dialogue has been resolved. The parties to the Ceasefire Agreement have never tired of meeting and exploring various initiatives to overcome whatever impediments stood in the way of progress in the peace process. The most recent of such meetings of the parties were held in Lusaka on 12 and 15 February 2001 at the Political Committee and summit levels respectively.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source
“The last time a similar meeting between the Political Committee and the Security Council was held, on 15 and 16 June 2000, the process of implementing the Ceasefire Agreement was facing numerous challenges: there were ceasefire violations and fighting in various provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) was experiencing numerous obstacles, and the national dialogue still had to overcome a series of complications. The picture then looked sombre - indeed, some would say downright depressing. Today, we have a radically transformed situation, one that yields renewed hope and optimism in and for the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
2001-02-21 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.4279 (2001) · source