|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Central Africa: Holbrooke Speech
Central Africa: Holbrooke Speech
Date distributed (ymd): 991214
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Central Africa
Issue Areas: +security/peace+ +US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains a slightly abridged version of the
speech in Pretoria by U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN
Richard C. Holbrooke, in which he promises to use the U.S.
chairmanship of the Security Council in January to focus
attention on Africa, and particularly the resolution of
conflicts in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The full speech can be found at:
http://www.un.int/usa/99_139.htm
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APIC Reminders
*** APIC/ECA Electronic Roundtable ***
Remember to sign up now for "International Policies, African
Realities," which begins in January 2000. Go to
http://www.africapolicy.org/rtable for more information and to
sign-up on the web, or send an e-mail message to
lyris@lyris.bellanet.org and put in the body of the message:
subscribe africanrealities-L firstname lastname
[Note: do not use "reply" to send your sign-up message to
apic. Send it instead to the automatic listserv address
lyris@lyris.bellanet.org.]
*** APIC Africa Web Bookshop ***
http://www.africapolicy.org/books
Updated with new books from 1998 and 1999. Including topical
sections on Economy and Development, Democracy and Human
Rights, Peace and Security, Education and Culture. Check it
out for background reading for the Roundtable. Order books or
CDs from Amazon.com through our site and earn a referral fee
to support APIC's work.
Holbrooke Says Africa Will Be UN Priority in January
U.S. Department of State (Washington)
December 7, 1999
New York - "Conflict in Africa and the Search for Peace in
Congo":
Remarks by U.S. Permanent Representative to the United
Nations Richard C. Holbrooke
Pretoria, South Africa December 6, 1999
... When the United States assumes the Presidency of the
Security Council next month, in January 2000 -- the first
month of the first year of the new millennium -- I wish to
announce today that we intend to make Africa the priority of
the month. ... We will hold at least four public meetings of
the Security Council to focus the UN and, we hope, the world
-- or at least that part of the world that listens -- to the
problems and the importance of this continent. One session
will definitely be on Angola, one will be on the Congo and we
will announce the subjects of the others in the near future
after consulting with other members of the United Nations.
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in the United
States, as most of you know, foreign policy and our budget are
determined in close consultation with the independent
Legislative Branch, the Congress; for this reason I am
particularly delighted that I am accompanied on this trip by
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who is the senior United
States Democratic Senator on African affairs. Senator Feingold
is deeply concerned with African affairs. He has visited the
area before. His presence on this trip and the support of the
chairman of his subcommittee, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee,
a Republican -- also a heart surgeon, who performed the first
heart/lung transplant in the United States and who has spent
many of his vacations performing surgery in the refugee camps
in southern Sudan and who has a deep interest in Africa --
shows that the region is not going to be ignored by its most
enlightened members. But clearly the Administration's
aspirations for Africa will continue to run ahead of the
resources that are allocated to this continent's problems.
That is unavoidable and the nature of our system.
Given the fact that there will always be a gap between
resources and rhetoric, we in the United States face a choice:
we can scale back our objectives, or we can continue to aspire
to the larger goals even when they appear to exceed the
resources that have been allocated to them. I for one -- and
I know this view is shared by President Clinton, Vice
President Gore, and Secretary of State Albright, and my other
colleagues -- will continue to seek the larger goals, even
when the resources do not always match our rhetoric. Why do I
say that? It is very simple. I believe firmly that if we scale
back our rhetoric, the resources will simply shrink more. It's
better to dream the larger dream and try to lead people
towards it. ...
No nation exemplifies this hope more than South Africa. I am
honored to be able to give the only speech of our ten-nation
trip here in Pretoria, here in South Africa, because your
nation is an inspiration to people not only on this continent,
but throughout the world, including the United States. ...
But South Africa, like many nations around the world who have
only recently replaced one repressive system of government
with another of democracy and freedom in individual rights,
still faces many challenges -- whether assuring that South
Africa's full economic potential reaches every citizen, or
fighting crime and corruption, or healing the legacy of racial
divisions and oppression. I am particularly concerned, let me
say -- and I know that Senator Feingold shares this view and
has introduced legislation to deal with it in the Senate --
with the issue of AIDS, all around the world, but especially
in Africa, given the statistics which we have been hearing in
every stop of this trip. It threatens development and progress
everywhere, including most definitely in this great nation.
... Let me say that it is clear to add that on the basis of
what we have been told here and by experts in New York and
Washington, that this is not just a health problem, it is an
economic problem that can sap the economic development and
potential future of countries that are making very significant
economic progress -- I think of Namibia and, I regret to say,
the threat that it poses to this country. ...
Perhaps the most urgent objective of our trip is to search for
ways to assist the resolution of conflicts that threaten the
future of this region. This is, to my mind, the United
Nations' most vital responsibility throughout the world. ...
Today, the UN, and the concept of collective security is
challenged as never before. ... Each crisis has its own
individual characteristics and each, therefore, must be
handled on its own merits and according to its particular
circumstances. But there are common threads.
In every crisis, every warring partner always argues the
uniqueness of its historical grievances. ... As I travel the
world -- and in the last three months I have been to four main
arenas of UN responsibility: Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and
now Africa -- I'm struck by characteristics that are common to
all these problems: the breakdown of states, ethnic hatred,
greed on the part of leaders, violent nationalism, oppression
of minorities and refugees.
President Mandela yesterday addressed this issue with our
delegation. He told us of his great dream that the leaders of
the conflicts -- and we spoke of the Middle East, Indonesia
and Africa -- would look to the future rather than to the
past; to seek common ground rather than accentuate or
exacerbate past differences. ...
As President Mandela told us, the wars of Africa, like those
of Europe and Asia, are not inevitable. They are caused by
leaders who yield to the narrowest definition of self-interest
and sacrifice their own citizens to their greed, their
ambition, their weakness. ... statesmen, stateswomen, and all
officials have a responsibility to go beyond dealing with the
consequences of these problems. We must address the underlying
causes.
As a start on this continent, the United States seeks to
empower Africans to handle crisis. Through President Clinton's
1996 African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), we are
enhancing Africa's own peacekeeping capability. The United
States has also contributed nearly $8 million to the
Organization of African Unity and through the work of special
envoys like Ambassador Howard Wolpe -- who is part of our
delegation and is with us here today at the head table -- we
are attempting to assist regional leaders in their efforts to
resolve conflicts.
South Africa has been a leader in addressing and mediating
conflict on the continent. As Howard Wolpe, Senator Feingold
and I told President Mandela yesterday, we enthusiastically
support his recent decision to put his skills and influence
and vast authority to bear as a special facilitator for the
Burundi crisis, as we hope that it can avoid falling into a
new catastrophic round of bloodshed.
As we set out to create the structures for peace to prevent
future conflicts, we must do all we can to solve current
crises like those in Burundi, Angola, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia
and Eritrea, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In
Sierra Leone, the West African states have courageously worked
through ECOWAS to secure a lasting peace. We joined other
Security Council members to establish a peacekeeping force for
Sierra Leone. Last week the United States delivered an
additional $6 million to ECOMOG.
In Angola, a country that our delegation visited only three
days ago, the United States and the United Nations have been
engaged for years in an effort to end its civil war, one of
the deadliest and longest-running conflicts on earth.
Tragically, and primarily because of the actions of UNITA, we
have seen the peace unravel yet again in recent months. We saw
first-hand on our trip the terrible results of this war -- the
personal trauma, the amputees, the refugees, the
disintegration of the entire infrastructure of Angola, the
malnourished children and the victims of landmines. We will,
as I said a moment ago, therefore, hold a special Security
Council meeting on Angola in January, and we will immediately
begin to seek ways to tighten the sanctions regime. But I want
to say that this does not mean a blank check for oppression by
either party in this tragic struggle. Those responsible for
this endless war, now in its thirty-fifth year, deserve the
contempt and opprobrium of the world.
Let me turn now to what is perhaps the biggest challenge we
may face in Africa in the coming year. I speak of course of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last week, the United
States joined the other members of the Security Council in
approving a resolution that authorizes the UN to begin
preparations for deployment of 500 military observers.
Preparing for a peace-keeping mission in the Congo, getting
it right, is our main focus for the remainder of the trip. The
task is truly daunting, as President Mbeki warned us
yesterday. But, as he also said, we -- the U.S., the United
Nations, the international community -- must not turn away
from this responsibility.
As it happens, there is a ready and excellent path to peace
that has been laid out for Congo. It has been signed by all
the parties, after a negotiation superbly led by President
Chiluba of Zambia. It is called the Lusaka Agreement. The
United States supports the Lusaka Agreement fully.
Allow me at this point a brief personal digression. I have
worked on issues of conflict resolution and in arenas of
conflict and war for my entire career in this government,
stretching over the last thirty-seven years, from Vietnam and
Cambodia in the 1960's and 1970's to Bosnia, Kosovo and East
Timor most recently. I believe deeply in peacekeeping efforts
-- and in the need for the United Nations to play an important
role in assisting in conflict resolution. I have lived with
failures, and I have participated in successes. I need hardly
tell you which is more satisfying.
But peacekeeping requires far more than words, more than paper
agreements. The parties to the Lusaka Agreement must respect
their commitments if peace is to return to the troubled Congo.
The international community cannot simply impose peace in the
Congo.
What most stands in the way of international efforts to assist
the Congo right now is -- and I say this with great regret --
the actions of some of the parties themselves. ... The renewed
fighting in the Congo -- which is a direct violation of the
Lusaka Agreement -- threatens to leave this important
agreement negotiated by President Chiluba in tatters. If the
parties in Congo truly want the international community's
involvement and support, such violations of these commitments
are simply unacceptable.
The United States, through the United Nations and through our
special envoy here with us today, has worked tirelessly to
support the Lusaka process. This includes supporting the
recently established Joint Military Commission (JMC), which
needs significant international support. Accordingly, I am
pleased to announce that the United States will deliver $1
million to the Joint Military Commission within the next few
days. We hope this action will invigorate the Joint Military
Commission. We urge other countries that have made commitments
to follow through and deliver the money that they have
promised.
The Joint Military Commission has a vital, but difficult task
to carry out. So, too, however, do the parties. We cannot
expect that alone, outside peacekeepers will deliver a peace
that is lasting and just. The people of the region, the
government of the Congo, the rebel groups, the neighboring
countries must commit themselves to the implementation of the
Lusaka Agreement, to stop all the fighting, to bring in an
outside facilitator into the process, to withdraw the outside
forces and to replace them with a peacekeeping force.
At the same time, the government in Kinshasa must enable UN
liaison officers and the UN assessment teams to do their jobs.
Kinshasa must assure them the necessary access, freedom of
movement, and security. All sides must disavow provocative
action; publicly disavow statements showing intent to abrogate
Lusaka; prevent attacks on civilians; and bring to justice to
those who commit such atrocities. And we urge them, we call on
them, to take the most immediate next step in the Lusaka
Agreement: to choose a facilitator for the political process.
However, to the evident frustration of nearly everyone, this
simplest, but essential step has not been made. ... Without
even this basic requirement fulfilled, the United States will
be unable to support moving to the next stage of peacekeeping.
We can only move forward together to bring peace to Congo if
the parties act in good faith and support the Lusaka process
-- the very process that they created. In the end, if the
Lusaka process fails because the parties can't agree on
something as simple as choosing a facilitator, they will face
tragic consequences, while the world -- including those of us,
like the United States, like this delegation, who wish to help
-- will be stymied and frustrated. ...
But if the parties find the will to maintain and bolster peace
in Congo, it is the United Nations' mission to help. It is the
United States' goal to assist. Where meaningful peace
agreements are in place and observed -- agreements like Lusaka
-- the UN and the United States should support their
implementation. Where an international presence is required to
achieve a meaningful peace agreement, or to provide the last
element to an already meaningful agreement, the UN has a vital
role to play. And it is critical that, when required, UN
peacekeeping is effective -- we cannot afford to repeat the
failed peacekeeping efforts from earlier this decade, the
catastrophes that almost took the United Nations down that I
mentioned earlier. The UN's sad performance in Bosnia and
Somalia, and its -- let me be frank -- our inaction in Rwanda.
When regional actors cooperate, when they observe a
cease-fire, when they ensure total access and security for
international observers or peacekeepers, when they choose a
political facilitator to move the process forward, then the UN
and the international community can make a real difference. We
will be prepared to help central Africa to become stable and
democratic, just as we were there to help the transition of
the new democracies of Southern Africa - - Namibia, Mozambique
and your country.
South Africa, of course, stands out as a shining example of
what is possible. ... And next door in Namibia, which was the
previous stop on our trip, the UN played an even more vital
role in helping Namibia peacefully navigate the path to
independence. Just last week, Namibia celebrated its third
round of free national elections. What the UN once contributed
to the Namibians, free Namibia now gives back through its
magnificent participation in the Security Council and through
the leadership of Ambassador Martin Andjaba, who led the UN's
mission to East Timor, and through the Presidency of the
General Assembly of Foreign Minister Gurirab.
Or look to your other neighbor, Mozambique, where the UN
oversaw a cease- fire and transition process that also led to
democracy. The people of Mozambique are making history as we
speak, with their second multi-party elections. South Africa,
Namibia and Mozambique, all in their different way, show how
valuable the United Nations can be. It is imperative that our
ultimate objective be the same outcome for Congo, Sierra
Leone, Angola and other conflicts.
In conclusion, let me say that it is with these key goals in
mind that our delegation leaves now for the second half of our
trip, where we will be joined by Assistant Secretary of State
for African Affairs Susan Rice. We will go to the five nations
that are most deeply involved in the Congo tragedy --
Zimbabwe, Zambia, Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic
of the Congo itself. We set out with no illusions as to the
complexities of the situation, but we hope and we pray that
the leaders of the region will work productively with the
United Nations, United States and all those many people who
pray and dream and work for the African Renaissance, to help
bring peace to the Congo.
Distributed by the Office of International Information
Programs, U.S. Department of State
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen international policy debates around
African issues, by concentrating on providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a wide
range of groups and individuals.
|
