Republic of the Congo, 1997

I wish to congratulate the President on his

brilliant election to the presidency of the fifty-second

session of the General Assembly. This election is both a

sign of the respect his country enjoys in the international

community and a tribute by the Members of our

Organization to his qualities as a diplomat and his

outstanding experience in the United Nations system. All

of this is, undoubtedly, assurance that efficiency will

mark his presidency and a guarantee that the work of the

session will be successful. My delegation would also like

to express its full gratitude and congratulations to

Mr. Udovenko’s predecessor, Ambassador Razali Ismail

of Malaysia, for his outstanding, imaginative and effective

work, in particular regarding his numerous initiatives —

especially the initiative that gave a decisive impetus to the

reform of the Security Council.

25

The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has, in a very

short space of time, done considerable work, in particular

in the area of reform. The results of this work will bring a

new perspective to the work and objectives of our

Organization.

I must tell this Assembly that my sorrow is great

because so many Congolese children, men and women have

fallen every day since 5 June 1997, under the crossfire of

shells in the civil war that has cast a pall over my country.

Therefore, with the indulgence of the General Assembly, I

wish to devote my comments to this tragic situation.

But what a dilemma confronts me at this rostrum! As

a Minister, I might be tempted to paint a picture of

propaganda, of oversimplification, of extremism and

exclusively of governmental platitudes. The intellectual and

the patriot I would wish to be must go beyond diplomatic

convention and express what I feel in my heart — my

deepest convictions — which are undoubtedly shared by

other Congolese of my generation.

They feel, as I do, great sorrow for all the victims

who continue to fall in the camp of President Lissouba and

in that of former President Sassou-Nguesso. And they feel

strongly, as I do, that the international community has left

them to their own devices to face this tragedy. And yet in

my country, which today is in the grip of civil war, almost

everything has been done since the sovereign national

conference to spare our young democracy from the tragic

upheavals inherent in any sudden social change, which in

this case consisted of the move from a single-party political

regime banning any organized opposition to a veritable

explosion of freedoms — individual, political and religious.

The Constitution, the charter of national unity and the

entire institutional and legislative framework set up since

the transition period, which lasted for more than a year, fall

within this framework. The holding of transparent, free and

fair elections — and in particular the presidential election,

which put President Pascal Lissouba at the helm of the

State with more than 61 per cent of the vote — was the

harbinger of an outstanding future for the process of

democratization in the Congo.

Moreover, President Lissouba has since his election

focused on establishing mechanisms to consolidate our

young democracy. In his quest to establish national

dialogue and social peace, President Lissouba, immediately

following his inauguration, launched an appeal to the

opposition to participate in the government of the Republic.

That offer, whose purpose was to correct or at least

minimize certain constitutional restrictions, was rejected

by the opposition. From that point on, for the opposition

each lost election became grounds for contention and

conflict. This has further distanced it from political power

and endangered the future of its own leaders.

The war that has brought bloodshed to Brazzaville,

our capital, is the culmination of the rejection by one

party of our political class to accept the rules of

democracy. The seeds of this war can be found in the

economic problems and difficulties of the country. Faced

with this war, we understand — though of course we do

not share — the indifference of the international

community to the fate of several thousand Africans, lost

in one corner of the globe. The concern of the great

economic Powers lies in preserving the richness of the

soil and the subsoil of that area, and the lives of its

inhabitants mean little to them.

But there are lessons to be learned from this

indifference. It has caused us to look at ourselves as if in

a mirror, in order better to understand the place that

Africans really hold in the community of nations. It has

also taught us that while patriotism could be a value

commonly shared by Africans, the cruel reality of Africa,

at least a part of it, is that it counts only for its wealth. So

in times of political setback, Africa can expect from the

international community only indifference at the outset

and condescending judgements later on. Often, and

belatedly, the only consideration it receives is to be

reminded of the human rights violations perpetrated in

wartime by conflicting parties.

But that right to judge, which we readily recognize

for other peace-loving and democracy-loving peoples,

does it not in turn imply a duty on the part of those who,

in time of war, stand by silently, failing to provide

humanitarian assistance to a people threatened with death

and extinction? The people of the Congo, who have, since

5 June 1997, been dying slowly under fire from rockets

and cannons — bought by the Congolese, yes, but sold to

them by Western “philanthropists” — do they not deserve

to benefit from that much-vaunted right to humanitarian

intervention?

We refuse to believe that, in the framework of our

Organization, whose solid, founding values include the

principle of justice and equality among peoples, this right

to humanitarian intervention, which on a global scale

involves an obligation to solidarity and to safeguard life,

applies only to certain colours or geographic locations,

depending on the colour or the geographic location of the

26

victims. If that belief were to be a certainty, or even to

exist, then it would — at least for some of the Members of

our Organization — undermine needlessly and in a lasting

way the legitimate trust that so many peoples, the innocent

victims of atrocities and injustice, have placed in the United

Nations.

Some Members of this Organization are tempted to

say that the Congolese must solve their problems

themselves, and we must take this appeal to our sense of

responsibility into consideration. Yet while today it is the

Congolese people who are hostages, perhaps tomorrow it

will be another people’s turn to be taken hostage by a

political class that is driven by selfish ambitions,

unprepared to accept the rules of democracy and

uninterested in seeking and maintaining peace.

Every day and at an increasing human cost, the

excessive demands of some and the lack of tolerance of

others defer to a later date the establishment of conditions

for a negotiated peace. That is what happened at Libreville

during the second week of September 1997. President

Pascal Lissouba agreed with President Omar Bongo,

President of the international mediation committee, on a

plan for the country to be run by a presidential college

composed of the incumbent President of the Republic and

three Vice-Presidents. But many Congolese saw in this

proposal an effort at power-sharing among those individuals

vying for power in the Congo and, hence, an end to the

war.

Unfortunately, their hopes were dashed as a nightmare

scenario unfolded. In response to this proposal from the

international mediation committee, the United Democratic

Forces of former President Sassou-Nguesso demanded that

the First Vice-President be one of their own and that he

exercise also the functions of Prime Minister of Minister of

Defence. Such a demand, in view of the political history of

our country, marked as it is by numerous coups d’état that

to this day still have supporters, could not be accepted by

the Government nor by the other parties of the most

representative opposition.

Following that refusal by former President Sassou-

Nguesso, a new Government was formed. Mr. Bernard

Kolélas, Mayor of the city of Brazzaville and leader of the

opposition, was appointed head of that new Government.

Several ministerial posts were reserved for the former

single party, the Congolese Labour Party of former

President Sassou-Nguesso.

To date, this effort to join the Government has also

been rejected by the armed opposition. What is to be

done?

The Government continues to believe in the virtue of

dialogue and not in the force of weapons. That is why it

continues to hope that the efforts of the International

Mediation Committee will offer the Congo a chance for

lasting peace, and for a transition managed jointly by the

various political forces of the country so that our people

can freely elect its President.

With the goal of finding this negotiated solution,

President Pascal Lissouba and Prime Minister Bernard

Kolélas recently signed the ceasefire plan proposed by the

International Mediation Committee. To date, only

Mr. Sassou-Nguesso has not signed.

When those who make secret contributions to

fratricidal massacres and destabilization in some

democratic States, guided by their own interests, invoke

the principle of non-interference as a pretext to give them

greater freedom to manoeuvre, should we not fear that

here non-interference may well become, given the

complaisance and the silence of the United Nations, the

worst form of interference against these massacred

peoples and these destabilized States?

Just about a year ago, speaking before this same

Assembly, I questioned the relevance of applying the rule

of rotation of power in the context of democratization in

our countries, which are economically weak and whose

political classes have for a long time gained their fortunes

and their social ascendancy exclusively from political

actions. The events in my country, unfortunately, give

greater meaning to this question. We are called upon to

understand better our contemporary political history and

the need to share power in order to ensure a lasting peace

and to better ensure the success of the democratic regime.

In the economic and historical context of some

African countries, this approach towards democracy, with

the development of respect for its basic needs, can be a

factor for peace and development, instead of being a

factor for destabilization and a vehicle for heightened

ethnic hatreds during elections, as in the case today in my

country.

This is a fundamental question, and undoubtedly my

country, today at war, will be able to answer it by finding

the road of reason, peace and pursuit of the democratic

process. The road leading to democracy in my country,

27

which has for a long time been under the yoke of a single-

party regime that flouted freedoms under a quickly

abandoned ideology, has been seen as a crossroads by our

people.

The opposite would have been preferred but

surprising, because the single-party regime and

totalitarianism cannot disappear without jolts or resistance.

Our struggle — that of all the Congolese who believe

in the values of democracy, in the development of the

human being in a democracy, in the unleashing of greater

intelligence and energy in our country thanks to democracy

and its regime of freedom will be in vain if the

international community — primarily the United Nations —

does not show us any sign of the solidarity that could, once

and for all, in spirit and in fact, do away with the

temptation to resort to weapons to gain power.

The Government of the Republic of Congo wishes to

express once again its regret and its great compassion to the

Government and to the brotherly people of the Democratic

Republic of the Congo for the damage and loss of life

resulting from the Brazzaville war. We are convinced that

the peoples of the two Congos, who have already shed too

much blood and too many tears in their history and in their

return to a state of law, wish to live in peace together.

That is why this situation has shown us how urgent it

is for all peace-loving and democracy-loving forces to come

to the aid of the Congolese as quickly as possible in order

to find a solution to return peace to Brazzaville and to

spare the entire subregion the further spread of destabilizing

acts and war.

We greatly appreciate the commitment of some

Governments that, in view of the Congolese tragedy, have

made known their readiness to provide troops that could

constitute a multinational interposition force, given the

procrastination of the United Nations.

The wounded and the dead in our own country have

helped us better understand and better regret such suffering

in the rest of the world. We wish here to express our

feeling of solidarity with all other peoples that are

suffering, the Algerian people in particular. There again,

our hope is that reason will prevail over any other

consideration so that Algeria can pursue its economic

development.

I wish to conclude by affirming that the political

determination to restore peace to Brazzaville exists.

However, the return to peace is made difficult in the field

by the fact that any deliberate or uncontrolled shooting

might, at any moment, lead to a further escalation of

violence and might endanger numerous human lives.

These acts are committed with such ease, irresponsibility

and impunity that there is no neutral international force in

Brazzaville that can determine who is responsible.

We believe that the presence of the troops of the

multinational force envisaged by the Secretary-General,

which was never established, would have enabled us to

move more quickly and more surely towards lasting

peace.

May our appeal for help be heard, or may it result

in greater understanding for future calls of distress. And

may my comments from this rostrum resonate within each

of us, like an echo in this General Assembly, to spare

other African peoples from ever suffering the torments of

war or the dictatorship of a handful of lawless and

faithless politicians, with wheelers and dealers on all sides

who are themselves lawless and faithless.