[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 557-558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           PEACEKEEPING THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the crisis in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. In that devastated country, we see 
one of the worst international crises of the last decade. It is a 
bloody and brutal conflict, one that has drawn country after country 
into an un-winnable struggle, one that has cost the lives of thousands 
of civilians and has displaced hundreds of thousands more, and one 
about which this body has been strangely quiet.
  Congo's conflict is as complex as it is destructive. It is born of 
the long absence of any semblance of political legitimacy in the 
government of that

[[Page 558]]

battered state, it is fed by the horrifying legacy of the Rwandan 
genocide, and it is intensified by the constant struggle for resources 
and wealth in the region. The litany of the causes of the war in Congo 
is a catalogue of the problems that plague the heart of Africa. Its 
outcome will likely determine the course of the region's future.
  Mr. President, we need to wake up and realize that the U.S. has a 
stake in that future. Our interests in global peace and stability, the 
rule of law, and respect for basic human rights are bound up in Congo's 
future. Africans and their potential American trading partners can have 
no hope of realizing Africa's vast economic potential until the 
region's cycles of violence come to an end. And America urgently needs 
to stop the spread of infectious disease, to address environmental 
degradation, and to build a global coalition to fight international 
crime--but these needs cannot be met without stability in central 
Africa.
  And Mr. President, global forces of instability will thrive, and 
their insidious influence will grow, when parties to the conflict in 
Congo turn to them, in desperation, for support.
  Mr. President, central Africa's leaders know that the region cannot 
prosper while the war in the D.R.C. continues. For that reason, last 
summer the parties to the conflict signed a blueprint for ending the 
conflict--the Lusaka Agreement. That Agreement calls for an end to the 
fighting, for a free political dialogue within Congo, and lays out the 
path to the withdrawal of foreign forces.
  Mr. President, I traveled to many of the countries involved in the 
crisis at the end of last year. In Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, in 
Uganda and Rwanda, and in the D.R.C. itself, I personally heard heads 
of state acknowledge the importance of making the Lusaka Agreement 
work. They understand the challenge before them, the precious 
opportunity embodied by Lusaka.
  Last week the parties to the Congo conflict renewed their commitment 
to the Lusaka Agreement in a series of extraordinary meetings at the 
United Nations in New York. They have all agreed to a facilitator, 
former President Masire of Botswana, to move the inter-Congolese 
dialogue forward. And all parties have called for a strengthening of 
the Joint Military Commission that is at the heart of the framework for 
peace.
  Mr. President, just as the U.S. has a stake in the outcome, the 
United States also has a role to play in supporting these efforts. The 
U.N. has already deployed a small team of liaison officers to the 
scene. Now, the United Nations Secretary General has issued a report 
laying out the next phase of U.N. involvement. It calls for the 
deployment of 500 monitors, with a 5,000-strong force providing 
security and logistical support to their mission. They will have a 
robust mandate that ensures their ability to protect themselves.
  Mr. President, none of the troops would be American, and that is as 
it should be. In fact, in my meetings with heads of state in the 
region, I explicitly asked about their expectations with regard to 
American troops, and I can report that no one has visions of a large 
American presence on the ground in Congo. But by creating the breathing 
room necessary to allow the belligerents to move toward peace, these 
troops will serve American interests.
  The U.N. Secretary-General has endorsed a good plan. Its value comes, 
in part, from what it does not do. The U.N. does not plan to send tens 
of thousands of troops into Congo to impose peace on hostile parties. 
Nor does the U.N. intend to stand by while the most brutal elements in 
Congo seize power through violence and impose their will on civilians.
  Instead, the plan that has emerged in New York harnesses 
international support to the commitment of the parties to the conflict. 
It recognizes that the only viable peace to be found in Congo is a 
peace created by the belligerent parties themselves. It acknowledges 
African responsibility for this African war, and strengthens the Joint 
Military Commission created by combatants when they signed the Lusaka 
accords. At the same time, this plan ensures that the international 
community does not turn its back on Africa.
  There can be no double-standard, whereby African conflicts are 
measured by a different scale than that used for conflicts in Europe or 
Asia. The plan for the deployment of the monitors and their supporting 
team has been vetted as thoroughly as any U.N. project. The stakes--in 
terms of human life and regional stability--are unquestionably high 
enough to meet the threshold for international action. Now, the U.N. 
has an opportunity to get it right in Congo.
  Supporting this U.N. mission is the least we should do to secure our 
interests and fulfill our responsibilities as responsible members of 
the international community. Should we fail to support it, should we 
ignore this terrible conflict any longer, we will weaken the 
international community's mechanisms for burden-sharing at the dawn of 
this new century. And we will lose an opportunity to reinforce a model 
for ending conflict and embracing a better future.
  I want to say, because obviously this has to be true and I am 
concerned about it, that the plan is not guaranteed to succeed.
  Little worth attempting ever is. Zambian President Frederick Chiluba 
was right when he said, last week, that no peacekeeping operation 
anywhere in the world is risk-free. But Mr. President, this is the best 
chance for shoring up the Lusaka Agreement and helping African states 
to end the conflict that we are likely to see.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to look at this program that is being 
suggested and to give it their support.

                          ____________________