Advocacy for the maintenance of EU sanctions against alleged perpetrators of human rights violations in Congo-Kinshasa

The European Union between values ​​and interests

 Tears for Congolese victims, weapons and champagne for their executioners and promises of lucrative mining contracts to European partners… So may be summarized the current situation of the DR Congo whose President Felix Tshisekedi calls for the lifting of sanctions of the European Union (EU) and the United States. Thus, unfortunately, the famous economic diplomacy operates, on whose balance only the interests and the competition of an unbridled market count. In the face of the need for strategic raw materials and competition from China, will human rights be less important as diplomatic adjustment variables ?

1. Brief reminder of the facts

Let’s start with a fact finding : December 2016 and May 2017, the EU imposes targeted sanctions (freezing assets and travel bans in the European Union) to 16 Congolese officials involved in serious human rights violations and in blocking the electoral process (see their names on Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016[1]). At that time, indeed, the Government that deliberately delays the organization of elections, led massacres of hundreds of peaceful protesters in several cities of the country and organized a crackdown in the blood of supporters of the traditional leader Kamuina Nsapu in the Kasai region. As a result, more than 80 mass graves identified by the UN Mission and two UN experts killed in March 2017.

With the exception of the ongoing trial of the killing of the two UN experts in Kasaï, the Congolese state has not undertaken any investigation into all these massacres and the Congolese justice system has not opened any investigation into these serious crimes allegations of human rights violations. Victims do not see any internal legal proceedings against their executioners who are active in public institutions (National Assembly, Senate, Public Enterprises, etc.). Moreover, the Congolese public treasury pays monthly fees from lawyers who defend individuals in their desire to obtain the lifting of sanctions.

On the electoral level, in addition to the major irregularities orchestrated on the day of the elections, we all know under which conditions the results of the elections were proclaimed and all the cacophony created between the CENI (National electoral commission) and the Constitutional Court. Those who delayed the elections also found ways to control the results and to gather majorities in the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate.

2. Advocacy by President Félix Tshisekedi for the lifting of sanctions

Since his controversial accession at the head of the country, President Felix Tshisekedi, who also campaigned for the imposition of these sanctions when he was still in opposition, has suddenly become a defender of the lifting of the sanctions of the European Union and the United States against the dignitaries of the Kabila regime. In support of his plea, the President mentions a change in the political situation and the fact that the personalities concerned have become his political partners. He goes so far as to describe these sanctions as unfair, thereby giving the impression of confirming the rumors that the plea for the lifting of sanctions against the barons of the old regime is one of the clauses of his deal, real or supposed, with Kabila.

The limits of such a discourse, following post-election deals and political agreements, are clearly visible: it forgets the victims and encourages impunity. This plea would have been more coherent if Congolese justice had investigated the human rights violations and massacres that led to the imposition of the sanctions in question. But nothing has been done in this direction before and after the advent of Felix Tshisekedi. We are in the logic of perpetuating the culture of impunity. That is why the United States did not give in to this politician speech and maintained its sanctions.

3. Political situation still unstable

The sanctions imposed by the European Union, the United States and the Swiss Confederation, as well as other pressure actions undertaken by Congolese and regional actors in Africa, have allowed substantial political progress in the DRC. These include the abandonment by former President Joseph Kabila of his ambition to seek a third presidential term and the fact of accepting a political alternation at the top of the state, despite the results of the presidential elections, legislative and provincial elections that were not in line with the expectations and the will of the people expressed in the ballot boxes and recalled in the respective post-election declarations of France, Belgium, the African Union and the European Union. However, lift the sanctions measures against these people targeted by the EU, at a time when the political situation in the DRC is not yet fully stabilized and that there is almost daily a resurgence of armed conflict in the east of the country, cases of restriction of citizens’ rights and serious human rights violations, particularly in North Kivu, Kinshasa and some mining areas of Katanga – violent military crackdown on artisanal diggers – risk undermining the few political gains so far.

4. Reasons to maintain EU sanctions

In its decision to renew the sanctions in December 2018, the European Union promised a re-examination of its position in terms of the quality of the elections. If this were really the most important criterion of evaluation, the debates would be closed. The elections have been chaotic, some of their results are still disputed to this day. This is mainly the presidential opponent Martin Fayulu claims to have won. The electoral report of CENCO contradicts the official result of the CENI. So, will the European Union change its paradigms of evaluation of this Congolese electoral process ? Will the weight of the economic interests of certain states override the priority of respect for human rights, which is one of the founding values ​​of this institution ?

As far as we are concerned, it is important to recall eight arguments against the lifting of sanctions against Kabila regime officials.

1) The lifting of the sanctions of the European Union could have a very negative impact on the Kananga trial. Indeed, whenever witnesses have highlighted the involvement of state officials in the killing of the two UN experts, they have been displaced or have disappeared. The lifting of sanctions may give the impression that these politicians have been cleared and the trial itself, which is being held thanks to international pressure (including sanctions), is likely to end without revealing the truth about the murderers and their sponsors.

2) To lift the sanctions now would be to forget the victims and to condone impunity, as no domestic legal proceedings have been instituted against the perpetrators. The fact that the Congolese taxpayer’s money continues to pay the fees of individual lawyers in this case, says a lot about the state’s willingness to protect the caciques from Kabila’s power. The EU can only condition the lifting of its sanctions upon the opening, by the Congolese justice system, of legal proceedings against all the authorities involved. If necessary, the EU can wait and take the time to ensure that legal proceedings against these sanctioned authorities do not give rise to trials of convenience.

3) The personalities targeted by the sanctions, because of their role in the pre-election violence, were already involved in other human rights violations in the past. A lifting of the sanctions would devote to them a particular status of untouchables, above the laws. Such a measure would leave them free to reproduce acts of the same nature in the future, with the certain risk of mortaging the processes of democratic alternation to come in Congo.

4) On the moral and symbolic level, the lifting of EU sanctions could be interpreted as yet another injustice against the Congolese people who are still waiting for certain caciques of the previous regime to be prosecuted for the offense committed by them in violation of human rights. And even if the EU sanctions are not judicial, they compensate at least, until then, the feeling of injustice and helplessness felt by a large majority of Congolese. It would also be a very negative signal to the Congolese people on the part of the EU to encourage impunity in the DRC. This, especially as no new exculpatory evidence of the Congolese personalities sanctioned pleads today in their favor and in favor of the lifting of the sanctions decided against them by the European Union.

5) On the political side, the EU knows that the current government is more than 60% controlled by the Kabila FCC coalition which has control over the Ministry of Justice. It is therefore difficult to imagine that legal proceedings are being brought against these EU sanctioned personalities who come from the same political family. Victims will not be part of their priorities. On the other hand, even if judicial information could be opened against these personalities, it is a safe bet, as said above, that their trials lead rather to a parody of justice.  

6) The argument that sanctioned personalities are no longer harmful is partly at odds with reality : in the security sector, not only are people still in office, but some have been promoted and have become untouchable. And the arrival of Felix Tshisekedi to the presidency has not changed anything. Moreover, it is also thanks to the sanctions that these political personalities are not today in the political positions of command. To lift the sanctions would lead to the risk of seeing them again in strategic positions.

7) A possible lifting of EU sanctions would give the impression of a tacit approval of a chaotic electoral process and political agreements made against the will of change expressed by the Congolese people.

8) By lifting these sanctions, the EU would position itself the opposite of the United States, which extended them to corruption during the electoral process. This discordance of the views of the international community would be a very bad signal of weakness sent to the new power of Kinshasa remained mostly in the hands of the old regime.

In conclusion, following the example of the United States, DESC is not only in favor of maintaining the sanctions measures against the personalities targeted by the EU, but also their dissuasive expansion to other actors such as Corneille Nangaa, Norbert Basenghezi and Joseph Kabila for being the architects and the linchpin of sloppy electoral cycle planning and the whole chaos strategy put in place that resulted in serious human rights violations.

Finally, as the complete electoral cycle has not yet been completed (there are still municipal and communal elections), the logic would be that EU sanctions would be maintained throughout the entire cycle, knowing that the risk of rigging, sabotage or the postponement of these elections remains high. To date, no concrete action by the new regime demonstrates its determination to organize elections that are fair, transparent and lawful, without corruption or human rights violations, with an apolitical and remodeled CENI so as to avoid Serious irregularities and new crises of legitimacy of the authorities in the future.

DESC, October 08, 2014

References

[1] eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2017:138I:FULL&from=FR.