Second Congo War:
Rwanda
Emily Martin
Chair
GSMUN XX
Hello Delegates,
GSMUN XX
Our World, Our Future
Robin Schwartzkopf
Secretary-General
Harish Tekriwal
Director-General
Isha Gangal
Undersecretary-General
for External
Communications
Jessica Kong
Charge d’Affaires
Parth Kotak
Undersecretary-General
for Logistics
Avery Gagne
Undersecretary-General
for Crisis Simulations
Annie Zhang
Director of Specialized
Agencies
Dharaa Rathi
Director of General
Assemblies
Kiersen Mather
Director of Press and
Publications
Ketty Bai
Director of Charitable
Giving
Andrew McCullough
Director of Technology
Mr. Max Smith
MUN Club Sponsor
As your chair, Emily Martin, I’d like to welcome you all to GSMUN and the
Rwanda committee of the Second Congo War.
As a brief introduction, I, Emily (She/Her pronouns), a senior, am extremely
excited to be chairing such a fascinating historical committee. Outside of Model
UN, I’m an avid participant in Model Congress and Maggie Walker’s Gender
and Sexuality Alliance. In my free time, I can often be found debating
philosophy, baking, and defending Aaron Burr.
As the individuals at the forefront of the debate on the Second Congo War,
each of you is expected to be ready to discuss the designated topics of the
Second Congo War and Human Rights. In order to prepare for the conference,
all delegates are expected to submit a position paper discussing their role’s
stance on each topic. While a background guide is provided as a starting point
for your research, you are expected to investigate each of our topics, and
thoroughly explain the position of the person you are representing. Papers
should be at least 500 words, 12 point, Times New Roman, and double spaced.
Further guidelines are available on GSMUN’s website, gsmun.net. The Maggie
Walker honor code is in effect, and any instance of plagiarism will result in
disqualification from awards consideration. We take this very seriously, so I
remind all delegates to cite their sources, and stay honorable. Feel free to contact
me with any further questions.
I also encourage delegates to arm themselves with knowledge of parliamentary
procedure prior to the start of the conference. This will allow us to jump
straight into debate and provide us with fewer interruptions. As a small crisisbased committee, we have less of a need to strictly follow parliamentary
procedure, but I nevertheless strongly encourage you to familiarize yourselves
with it ahead of time.
That all being said, I look forward to meeting each of you come this March.
Sincerely,
Emily Martin
[email protected]
Committee Background
The Republic of Rwanda is a small,
landlocked state located in central Africa. At
the 2000 census, it had a population of
roughly 8.4 million over 26,338 square miles,
making it one of the smallest nations in
Africa, despite its relatively high population
density. Rwanda shares a border with Uganda,
Tanzania, Burundi, and the Democratic
Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). All
Rwandan people are descended from the
same ethnic/linguistic group, the
Banyarwanda. From this group come the
three ethnic subgroups, the Hutu, the Tutsi,
and the Twa. Of these, the Hutu form
majority of the population at 84%, while the
Tutsi take up roughly 10-14%, and the Twa
only 1% of the population. There is no
consensus on whether or not the Hutu and
Tutsi make up separate and distinct ethnic
groups, or are merely the products of a caste
system from early in the nation’s history.
From the late 19th until the 20th
century, Rwanda served as a colony of
Germany and Belgium, respectively. Prior to
colonization, a Tutsi dynasty ruled the country
and carried out a mission of expansion.
During this period, a cattle-based caste system
was in place, under which Hutus were
responsible for framing and manual labor,
while Tutsi controlled the government.
Following colonization, both nations
continued to supported pro-Tutsi policies,
granting Tutsi nearly all power in the colonial
government. During Belgium’s rule in the
early 1900’s, Rwandans were issued
identification cards formally differentiating
between the Hutu and Tutsi and significantly
limiting the already limited social mobility that
had existed.
Rwanda received its independence in
1962, in the midst of a period of racial
violence. The complicated racially
discriminatory system that had existed to that
point began to fall apart, as the Hutu began a
several years long revolution in 1959 which
caused around 150,000 Tutsi to flee the
country. These racial tensions continued for
much of the 20th century, but came to a head
in 1994, when, following a period of social
unrest, armed Hutu militia began a massacre
of Tutsis and moderate Hutus which lasted
roughly 100 days. The genocide began after a
plane carrying Rwandan President Juvénal
Habyarimana and Burundian President
Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down.
Responsibility for the assassination was never
claimed. This genocide, known as the
Rwandan Genocide, resulted in roughly
800,000-1,000,000 dead and 2 million
displaced. Most refugees from the genocide
were Hutu, fleeing after the Tutsi-Led
Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) came into
power. Most refugees fled to the DRC (then
known as Zaire). However, the refugee camps
housing Rwandans were in poor condition.
Aside from those who died from problems of
starvation and disease, thousands more,
primarily Hutu people, died after Hutu
guerrillas known as Interahamwe attacked the
refugee camps, which acted as de facto
training grounds for Hutu militia. By now, the
Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front controlled
most of Rwanda. The conditions in refugee
camps caused concern over the possibility of
another attack on Rwanda by the
Interahamwe. Rwandans feared Zaire’s
sponsoring in these groups would spark a
resurgence of the genoise and conflict in the
region. Fearing the worst, Rwandan and
Ugandan troops banded together in an
attempt to oust Zaire’s dictator, Mobutu SeseSeko.
The First Congo War
The first Congo war started with the
actions of eastern Congolese Banyamulenge,
members of the Tutsi ethnic group. The
Banyamulenge primarily resided along the
Zaire-Rwanda border in the province of Kivu
in eastern Congo. While often marginalized
throughout Zaire’s history due to their racial
and ethnic heritage, the situation only
worsened as Zaire’s government continued to
protect the Hutu génocidaires residing in
refugee camps. When the vice-governor of the
Province announced plans for then forced
removal of the entire ethnic group, The
Banyamulenge revolted, sparking the conflict
that would eventually fan into the “Great
African War.”. Backed by the RPF, on August
31st, 1996, the Banyamulenge began an
uprising attempting to seize control of the
Kivu province and ensure their continued
security. While the primary concern of the
group was stopping the militarized Hutus
from furthering their agenda of death and
destruction within the country, several
international dynamics were also at play.
Heavily supported by outside agents,
specifically Rwanda and Uganda, the
Banyamulenge became part of a larger plot to
remove hated long-time president Mobutu
from power. At the time of the rebellion,
Zaire was failing economically. Mobutu, a
long standing and largely incompetent
dictator, was disliked by both sections of the
country’s populace and most of the
neighboring states. Fearing attacks by Hutus
residing in Zaire, the RPF and their Ugandan
allies ended up heavily involved in the war,
backing former marxist rebel Laurent-Désiré
Kabila to replace Mobutu and protect their
own interests, primarily breaking up
Interahahmwe groups and protecting the
Rwanda-Congo border. Combined, these
groups made up the “Alliance of Democratic
Forces for the Liberation of Congo” or
AFDL, and were led by Kabila.
Fighting began in September of 1996.
By December, the AFDL had gained control
of most eastern Congolese provinces. Not
long after, in May 1997, AFDL forces had
seized control of Kinshasa, the Nation’s
capital, with relatively minimal use of force.
By September they had successfully installed
Kabila renamed Zaire, the name a leftover
colonial legacy, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC).
Rwanda had several reasons for being
involved in the First Congolese War. The
first, and most obvious reason is the desire for
continued protection of Rwanda. Mobutu’s
government had actively assisted the Hutu
militia residing in the refugee camps, and
posed a serious threat to the country. But
most reasons for involvement were decidedly
more political. Backing the Banyamulenge was
the perfect way to manipulate Congolese
politics. The Congo occupies a geographic
location far greater than Rwanda’s, and
houses some of the richest mineral deposits of
any country on earth. Under Mobutu’s
fumbling leadership, these resources were
never exploited to their fullest potential, and
by installing an allied regime, Rwanda stood to
gain access to highly profitable material
resources. In an era of great regional
instability, overthrowing Mobutu offered the
Rwandan government the ability to select a
government that would be friendly to
Rwandan interests.
Involvement in the Second Congo War
It is with this complicated history of
war, of genocide, of coups, and of instability,
that the Second Congo War was formed. The
installation of Kabila’s new government did
little to alleviate the fighting and tensions in
the region. Rwandan and Ugandan forces had
relied on the new regime protecting their
interests, having chosen Kabila in part out of
his willingness to do what they wanted.
However, Kabila showed no desire to hold up
his end of the deal. Any hope of
democratization or change within the Congo
was destroyed as he swiftly banned all
opposition parties. Kabila knew how to play
to the inclinations of the Congolese people,
and few were at all happy with Rwandan
interference within the country. Following the
war, Rwanda had soldier its hold on the
region by installing several key Rwandan
officials to high ranking position in Kabila’s
government. However, they were swiftly
demoted, temporarily staving off Rwandan
anger, before all foreign forces were finally
ordered to leave the country in August 1998.
It was within this period that Kabila went
back on nearly all of his wartime promises to
the Rwandan government, supporting many
of the same policies of his predecessor, and
continuing to provide refuge and aid to Hutu
génocidaires residing in refugee camps. The
entire first war had been fought but the
resolution provided no stability to the region,
only re-creating the same conflict from the
year prior.
Kabila’s betrayal caused Rwandan
forces to regroup in opposition, once again
backed by Ugandan and Burundian forces.
Revolts in military camps, where Rwanda and
Uganda still maintained a presence, served as
the catalyst for the actual outbreak of war,
though tensions had been mounting and it
was clear that further conflict was inevitable.
What could have ended much as the first
war—with a swift military campaign of
gaining power throughout the country—was
stopped in its tracks by the interference of
Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia on behalf of
the DRC. This action transformed the war
from a relatively simple border dispute to a
continent wide war that saw Congolese
Government forces, backed by several other
states, fighting a collection of Rwanda,
Ugandan, and Burundian rebel forces. All in
all, nearly 30 different parties have some stake
in the conflict.
However, the war in the Congo is
more than just political. Despite decades of
poor management and a history of
exploitation, the DRC is a territory rich with
extremely valuable mineral deposits and
natural resources. Every country involved in
the war has a lot to gain by being on the
winning side. Annexation of territory has the
potential to provide the victorious countries
with vast deposits of wealth and a political
beginning tool on the global stage. Supporters
of Kabila are motivated in part by the desire
to take a share of Congo’s resources. The total
value of Congo’s natural resources is
estimated at around 24 trillion dollars. While
this would be lot of money for any country,
most parties in this war are particularly cash
strapped, and access to those resources have
the potential to revitalize the economy. Some
speculate that Angola, Namibia, and
Zimbabwe have only partnered with the DRC
out of a desire to gain access to their mineral
wealth. Rwandan forces, meanwhile, have
been accused of profiting off of the state of
anarchy within the Congo by plundering
resources in neighboring territories. What
started off as a largely political conflict has
quickly morphed into a fight for valuable
conflict minerals.
Conflict minerals are the foundation
of Congo’s history. Their former status as a
regional power was lost during the rampant
colonialism of the 19th century. King Leopold
II of Belgium was responsible for the violent
exploitation and subjugation of the people of
the Congo. During his reign, it is estimated
that 10 million people died while mining the
countries resources. None of this wealth went
towards the growth of the colony, rather,
most of it went straight into the pockets of
Belgian royalty to pay off debt associated with
his exploitation. Following several regime
changes and renaming from the “Congo Free
State” to the “Belgian Congo,” the colony
achieved independence in 1960, only to
undergo five years of conflict as the colony
played out as a cold war proxy battle. Mobutu
eventually seized power in 1965.
Under Congo’s previous government,
mineral production was ineffectively managed.
Mobutu failed to create any cohesive system
for harnessing the mineral wealth and
potential of the country. Mobutu is perhaps
best recognized for his “kleptocracy,” under
which he embezzled billions of dollars from
the government. While the country was able
to gain some revenue during times of peace,
in the war torn situation, any opportunity to
maximize wealth had been completely lost by
decades of poor management.
Currently, the Congolese government
is able to derive almost no money from these
resources, many of which reside in Rwandan
occupied eastern Congo. However, the chaos
caused by war has presented the golden
opportunity for belligerents to loot and raid
mines for individual material gain. The theft
of these conflict minerals provides no tangible
benefit to the greater African economy. These
materials are often sold to foreign countries
and corporations— leaders and thieves are
more concerned with turning a quick profit
than anything else. The sale and trade of
conflict minerals has created a monopoly of
violence over the country, completely
destabilizing the eastern half of the country
and providing no opportunities for
improvement. Armed groups fighting for
control of the mines are known for their
many human rights violations, including
extensive rape and murder of civilians. Of
these warlords who are fighting for control in
the eastern portions of the province, several
can be tied to Rwanda.
The fight has taken place between
numerous countries and rebel groups.
Particularly notable to Rwanda is The Rally
for Congolese Democracy (RCD), which has
been the primary body representing Rwandan
interests in the country. The RCD is also
backed by Uganda. This group forms the
primary opposition to Kabila, though they
have been aided by the RPF, and several other
smaller rebel groups. These many rebel
groups have been generally unpopular. Many
advocate extremist views, and much of the
population views them as a hindrance to
economic and social progress.
As the main group that supports the
removal of Kabila, the interests of the group
are varied. While generally a leftist group, the
group is also made up of pro-Mobutu
conservatives, anti-Kabila RDFL members,
and traditional democrats. The group
eventually fractured over ideological
disagreements— several factions of the party
were concerned only with Kabila’s removal,
while other groups wanted a broader promise
of democracy measures. The presence of two
factions, RCD-Kisangani and RCD-Goma,
has only further complicated the conflict.
Rwanda has predominately supported
RCD-Goma, which boasts a larger force. The
original rebel group’s first leader, Ernest
Wamba, was ousted in the separation, and
replaced by Emile Ilunga, who was supported
by Rwandan forces. For the majority of the
first part of the war, Rwanda and Uganda
insisted that they were uninvolved with the
events of the war. As they asserted their
neutrality, they also became actively involved
with the exploitation of Congo’s mineral
wealth. As of 1999 Rwandan backed rebel
groups hold territory primarily in the eastern
part of the Congo, along the border with
Rwanda. These territories happen to be some
of the most mineral rich in the country, and it
is estimated that rebel control of this area has
led to up to 40% of the minerals being out of
reach of the government.
The biggest questions concerning the
future of the war lie in the possibility of viable
peace accords.
Human Rights Issues
The war has been primarily fought via
regional proxies, and little territory has
actually changed hands. To date, most of the
conflict is being fought on Congolese
Territory, forcing the DRC to sustain the
greatest burden of the war. By 1999, several
million people many of them civilians have
been killed, often dying from starvation and
disease. Rebel forces and armies are using
rape as a tool of population suppression. One
such example of the rampant human rights
violations is the systematic murder of Mbutu
Pygmies. Mbuti pygmies have claimed that
the fighting has led to the Mbuti ethnic group
being hunted, killed, and eaten, some
comparing it to hunting animals. These crimes
are being committed on all side; as a result of
the conflict. On a more general level, the
people of the Congo are viewed as subhuman
and expendable, a reasonable price to pay for
political power and economic might.
Estimates suggest that several
thousand child soldiers serve under the
command of Kabila and various rebel
warlords. This represents another egregious
human rights violation that has been decried
by supranational organizations to no effect.
The war has all but halted attempts at
modernization and expansion within the
Congo, which has one of the 5 lowest GDPs
per capita. What limited infrastructure and
access to education existed in the country is
now gone, wiped out by the conflict. Without
a viable peace deal, any opportunity to rebuild
Congo effectively seems all but impossible.
UN peacekeeping forces, in the country since
1996, have supported a peace deal, though
this seems unlikely to happen with Kabila’s
government still in power.
Rwanda has faced particularly harsh
accusations of brutality. The country, in trying
to prevent the continuation of the Rwandan
genocide, has been accused of committing
similar crimes against the Congolese people. It
should be noted that these crimes do not
constitute genocide, as they have not been
against any particular ethnic group. Rather,
murder has been widespread and plunder
constant. The eastern part of the country,
Kivu, has been hardest hit. Fields have been
razed, infrastructure destroyed, and people
massacred by Rwandan occupying forces. The
destruction of these resources has multiple
implication. As one of the 5 poorest countries
in the world, the Government doesn’t have
the time, money, resources, or abilities to
rebuild their lost infrastructure. This majority
of this is felt by civilians caught in the midst
of a war they aren’t a part of. With much of
the eastern part of the country inhabitable,
thousands have died of famine, in part due to
the destruction of farmlands and livestock at
the hands of the military.
Reports also suggest that rape has
been widely used as a tool of fear and
violence. As other countries attempt to exert
control over areas of the Congo, both rebel
and government backed groups have been
accused of raping adolescent girls and women
in villages they occupy. Rape has become a
tool to force civilians and local populations
into submission. Those who escape death at
the ends of armed forces will likely be victims
of sexual violence or sold into sexual slavery.
These crimes only further highlight the extent
to which the destruction of civil society in the
Congo has led to unchecked and rampant
human rights violations.
Throughout this conflict, political
freedoms have begun to reach all-time lows.
While Kabila promised democratic reform, his
promises for democratization have been in
name only. Opposition groups and ethnically
Tutsi Congolese have been the subject of
arbitrary arrests and executions. Reports
suggest that late 1998 and early 1999 has seen
an increase in the number of political
prisoners taken by Kabila’s government,
which currently shows no willingness to enact
true reform. Humanitarian agencies have been
granted limited access to facilities given to
prisoners, making it unclear the full extent of
the crimes being committed. However, the
consensus among the humanitarian
community is that no group has shown
respect for human rights or the rights of
civilians during the war. Of the hundreds of
thousands of casualties that have occurred,
the primary victims are civilians. In dealing
with the effects of the war, dealing with the
humanitarian crises that have arisen will also
need to be a priority, should these abuses be
expected to stop with the fighting.
Questions to Consider
1. What should be the next move of the
Rwandan government?
2. Should Rwanda support a peace mission,
or should they continue fighting until the
war is won?
3. What terms are necessary to secure peace?
4. What viable military options does Rwanda
have to win the war
5. Should the domestic consequences of the
war have any impact on Rwandan
strategy?
6. Should Rwanda and Uganda attempt to
consolidate the rebel groups?
7. Have there been war crimes committed?
By whom? How should these criminals be
tried?
8. How can Rwanda mitigate internal ethnic
tensions?
9. Should Rwanda attempt to annex part of
the DRC? Does Rwanda have a legitimate
claim to any of this territory?
10. What are the potential ramifications of
the war?
Bibliography
BBC. "Q&A: DR Congo Conflict." November
20, 2012. Accessed October 4, 2016.
http://www.bbc.com/news/worldafrica-11108589.
BBC. "Rwanda Genocide: 100 Days of
Slaughter." April 7, 2014. Accessed
October 4, 2016.
http://www.bbc.com/news/worldafrica-26875506.
Bukavu, Kinshasa, and Kisangani. "Africa's
Great War." The Economist, July 4,
2002. Accessed October 4, 2016.
http://www.economist.com/node/12
13296.
"Casualites of War: Civilians, Rule of Law,
and Democratic Freedoms." Human
Rights Watch. Last modified February
1999. Accessed October 4, 2016.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/c
ongo/.
"Democratic Republic of Congo." Accessed
October 4, 2016.
http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/gen
ocides-and-conflicts/congo.
Doyle, Mark. "DR Congo's Rebel
Kaleidoscope." BBC, December 5,
2012. Accessed October 4, 2016.
http://www.bbc.com/news/worldafrica-20586792.
Gettleman, Jeffrey. "The Price of Precious."
National Geographic, October 2013.
Accessed October 4, 2016.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2
013/10/conflict-minerals/gettlemantext.
Pomfret, John. "Rwandans Led Revolt in
Congo." Washington Post (Washind,
DC), July 9, 1997. Accessed October
4, 2016.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/inatl/longterm/congo/stories/07099
7.htm.
"Rwanda." The Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia™. New York: Columbia
University Press,
2016. General
Reference Center GOLD. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
Washington Post (Washington, DC). "Diamond
Heist." Accessed October 4, 2016.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp
adv/specialsales/spotlight/congo/dia
mond.html.
Weiss, Herbert. "The Second Congo War and
Its Consequences." Last modified
August 2000. Accessed October 4,
2016.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat
/AD_Issues/amdipl_16/weiss/weiss_
congo4.html.
Zapata, Mollie. "Congo: The First and Second
Wars, 1996-2003." Last modified
November 29, 2011. Accessed
October 4, 2016.
http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs
/congo-first-and-second-wars-19962003.