US embassy cable - 05KINSHASA1969

C O N F I D E N T I A L KINSHASA 001969 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/30/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, KPKO, CG 
SUBJECT: FOREIGN MINISTER COMPLAINS ABOUT CIAT COMMUNIQUE 
 
REF: KINSHASA 1954 
 
Classified By: DCM TDougherty for reasons 1.4 b/d. 
 
1. (SBU) Foreign Minister Ramazani convoked the Kinshasa 
diplomatic corps the morning of November 30 to express the 
GDRC's unhappiness with CIAT's November 25 communique that 
took transition leaders to task for inaction on security 
sector reform, non-payment of salaries to the military, 
delays in enacting essential legislation, not holding 
regularly scheduled meetings of joint commissions and the 
Espace Presidentiel, and other issues central to the 
successful completion of the DRC's transition (reftel). 
CIAT's communique was issued after the 16 members of CIAT 
agreed that a clear message needed to be sent to transition 
leaders that urgent action and strong leadership on their 
part are needed.   With the Ambassador in the east for a 
Congressional visit, DCM attended Ramazani's meeting. 
 
2. (C) Ramazani said that his comments were not intended to 
be the official response of the GDRC, which he said would be 
forthcoming from the government's spokesman.  He added that 
he had decided to meet with the entire diplomatic corps (and 
not just with CIAT) so that all would know what is being 
discussed.  Quoting sections of the communique that he found 
objectionable, Ramazani said the communique had given the 
impression that transition leaders were indifferent to the 
needs of the military, that leaders were betraying the 
people, and the parliament was incapable of adopting 
legislation.  He noted that the Amnesty Bill had been passed 
by parliament just the previous evening (septel to follow), 
and that the Electoral Law would be adopted immediately after 
the constitutional referendum.   He made no specific 
references to military pay or security sector reform.  As an 
aside about scheduled meetings not taking place, he said they 
had not been cancelled but only postponed.  He pointed out 
that the meetings couldn't take place with various leaders 
and ministers not being available (comment: which of course 
was exactly CIAT's point). 
 
3. (C)  On several occasions, he admitted that the transition 
had problems, delays, and difficulties.  While acknowledging 
that CIAT has a role in the transition as mandated in the Sun 
City Accord, he said that its recent communique reflected 
neither "solidarity" nor "collaboration."  Noting that the 
transition's various factions have been working well together 
and have "come a long way," he asked rhetorically if it was 
now the time for CIAT to criticize.  He repeatedly said that 
a communique released to the media was not the proper way to 
convey information, and said that CIAT and others could 
always pass messages through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
(comment: which prompted some muted chuckling in the room 
since the Ministry is not known for efficiency or 
responsiveness).  Ramazani stressed that any action that 
could erode confidence in the transition should be avoided, 
and that it was not right for CIAT "to go over the heads" of 
transition leaders by appealing to public opinion. 
 
4. (C) Ramazani concluded by saying he would take three 
questions, "but no debate."  Only the South African 
Ambassador responded, both in the absence of the dean and as 
a member of CIAT.  In short remarks, he said that CIAT would 
continue to play a constructive role and was willing to meet 
as a group with the Foreign Minister.  Ramazani then 
acknowledged that while CIAT's "intentions" might have been 
good, the "form" of the communique wasn't.  The twenty-minute 
session then ended. 
 
5. (C) Comment: The communique obviously stung many in the 
government, and Ramazani clearly had been instructed to 
convey displeasure.  More of the same will no doubt be 
included in the official government response.  Ramazani's 
concerns about the communique being released to the press 
need to be put in context, however.  CIAT regularly issues 
communiques which are always reported by the press. The issue 
this time was that the communique was critical of the 
government. 
 
6. (C) Comment continued:  The intent of the communique was 
to send a clear message, and on that score it succeeded very 
well.  In general the media welcomed CIAT's communique and 
concurred that the issues raised by CIAT urgently need to be 
addressed.  With the exception of Ramazani's remark about 
some progress on the legislative front, it is telling that no 
one in the government up to this point has yet said anything 
about the substance of the concerns raised by CIAT, nor taken 
any new action to allay those concerns.  End comment. 
MEECE