As a Canadian civil society organization in discussion with African civil society organizations, particularly civil society in Central Africa, we are asking questions about Canadian foreign policy which, like that of a number of wealthy countries, is promoting half measures to resolve deep-rooted problems. If we look at Central Africa, we should realize that this series of half measures that we have supported since 1994 has resolved nothing. At present, people are being killed and raped, houses are being burned and villages are being emptied, after having subscribed to the belief that support for a joint initiative between the Rwandan army and the Congolese army would be a solution.
We know that combatants are responsible for the massacres, and Canada, like the entire international diplomatic community, supports initiatives that seek to integrate rebels who are responsible for killings and rapes within the Congolese army. We then see that the Congolese army is unable to resolve the problems caused by the rebels.
We supported a joint initiative with an army that supported other rebel groups. So, each time we appeal to the international community, for example to reinforce the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Congo and to ensure increased participation by wealthy nations, we wind up with a short-term solution being passed off as a local solution.
Denis talked about initiatives that Canada took in 1996. Following the disaster in Rwanda, more than one million refugees wound up in the Kivu regions. At the time, the Canadian government initiated a peacekeeping mission. It claimed that there was a local solution that would enable the problem to be resolved. This local solution was supporting the Rwandan army when it bombed refugee camps to force some of the refugees to go back home and when it pursued those refugees throughout the Congo. In fact, this destabilization continues in the Congo and has led to five million deaths and left the country in ruins.
So something that was presented as a local African solution—in fact a less costly solution for the wealthy nations—could not have turned out worse. For example, when we engaged in the inter-Congolese dialogue, we supported the inclusion of the various rebel groups within a national unity government. So, people who are criminals can become ministers, can share the power and not adopt policies on good governance or policies to fight impunity, to the extent that no progress is made.
Now, integrating the rebels within an army is being proposed, only to then see how powerless this army is in resolving the problem. Then we are told that this is a failing state. We believe that it is essential to reflect on these policies and on the refusal of wealthy nations to make a clear and effective commitment to peacekeeping missions in Africa.
After Rwanda, everyone said that peace missions in Africa were under-equipped, too small and underfinanced. Denis said that there are no more than five or six Canadian soldiers taking part in the largest peacekeeping mission on the planet. In fact, all western nations together, out of 18,000 troops, have provided no more than some 100-odd soldiers over the years.
Generally, when the situation on the ground becomes truly troubling, when there are problems, the troops there will hole up in their barracks. Canada and wealthy nations are paying, but they are refusing to get involved. Consequently, we wind up with peacekeeping missions on that continent which are quite ineffective. Afterward, local governments are blamed.
I would like to reiterate the request made by representatives of civil society organizations and churches in Ottawa to members of Parliament and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Canada, which is for the Canadian government to more actively take part in this peacekeeping mission involving a large part of Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo shares a border with nine countries and has vast resources. A destabilized and weak Congo has negative consequences for a large part of Africa.
I would also like questions to be asked about Canada's policy on cooperation in that region. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a country that shares one of our languages and it is the largest member nation of the francophonie. It has immense resources in which Canada has interests or, at the very least, expertise, and could contribute to development both there and here. I am referring to mines, forests, energy, electricity and transportation. I would note that this region is experiencing the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. Yet, since the mid-1980s, not one single Canadian minister has set foot in that country.
With regard to the envelope for cooperation, we salute the fact that, after about a decade of attempts, a program framework for Canadian cooperation has been developed and adopted. We feel that this is important. Last year, the regular program envelope, excluding humanitarian aid, for the Democratic Republic of Congo was lower than it had been during the years under Mr. Mobutu. Despite the fact that we're talking about a country that has a key role to play, and despite the fact that it has been stated that we need to double Canada's aid to Africa, the envelope was lower in 2008 than during the 1980s.