U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

63–122 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–185] 

THE CRISIS IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO: IMPLICATIONS FOR 

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL 

THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

NOVEMBER 30, 2010 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND 

CAPABILITIES 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, Chairwoman 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 

PETER VILLANO, Professional Staff Member 

ALEX KUGAJEVSKY, Professional Staff Member 

JEFF CULLEN, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010, The Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo: Implications for U.S. National Security ................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 .................................................................................. 29 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2010 

THE CRISIS IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO: 

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ............... 1 

WITNESSES 

Dagne, Ted, Specialist in African Affairs, Congressional Research Service ....... 3 

Komorowski, Adam, Regional Head of Operations, Africa Mines Advisory 

Group (MAG) International ................................................................................. 7 

Prendergast, John, Former Director of African Affairs, National Security 

Council .................................................................................................................. 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Dagne, Ted ........................................................................................................ 38 

Komorowski, Adam ........................................................................................... 54 

Miller, Hon. Jeff ................................................................................................ 34 

Prendergast, John ............................................................................................ 44 

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta ...................................................................................... 33 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

THE CRISIS IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE 

CONGO: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL

THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, November 30, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Loretta Sanchez (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS 

AND CAPABILITIES 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The subcommittee will now come to order. 

Good afternoon. We meet today to discuss the ongoing crisis in 

the Democratic Republic of Congo and examine the related implications for U.S. national security. 

Within Africa the Democratic Republic of Congo has always held 

strategic importance, due to its large size and central location, as 

well, of course, all its natural resources. For decades the Congo has 

experienced varying degrees of political instability and violence, 

and it is estimated that more than 5 million people have died there 

due to preventable disease and war-related causes. The violence is 

additionally troubling because of the high degree of gender-based 

and sexual violence, which appears to have become frighteningly 

commonplace there. 

In the midst of this violence the Congo has been the site of one 

of the largest and most expensive United Nations [U.N.] peacekeeping missions in the world. Changes in this U.N. mission are 

on the horizon, and the Congolese government recently asked for 

a gradual withdrawal of the U.N. peacekeeping force that is there. 

Nearly 1,500 U.N. peacekeeping troops have been withdrawn 

since May of this year. And since the Congo will also host presidential and legislative elections in November of 2011, I think that 

the time is right for the U.S. and others to consider how these 

changes would impact security and stability in the region and to 

prepare accordingly. 

With its porous borders, its weak institutions and its close proximity to East African countries, such as Uganda and Sudan, 

transnational terrorist threats should not be ruled out when we 

seek to understand U.S. national security concerns associated with 

the Congo and with the Great Lakes region. This point is critical 

to our subcommittee, which deals with terrorism, unconventional 
2 

threats and capabilities. And although few transnational terrorist 

threats have been directly linked to the Congo, Al Qaeda and affiliated groups have had a presence in neighboring East Africa for almost 20 years. And the recent attacks in Kampala, Uganda, this 

past July remind us of how linked these issues have become. 

The Department of Defense [DOD] has been active in Africa and 

within the Congo and neighboring countries. Through our U.S. Africa Command [AFRICOM], the United States has worked to improve the capacity of the Congolese military, and it has sought to 

develop an army that is accountable to the Congolese people. More 

specifically, our Special Operations Forces have been focused on 

training, teaching and mentoring the Congolese army and have 

worked to create a model battalion that can in turn train and professionalize the rest of the Congolese Army. 

So I am pleased that one of the major goals and components of 

U.S. training and assistance has been to improve the human rights 

practices of that Congolese army. And with this in mind, I am really thrilled about the hearing today. 

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to stay the entire time. I have 

asked Mr. Smith when I leave to take over, and I know this is a 

topic that he is incredibly interested in also. 

So I thank the witnesses for being before us. 

And Mr. Conaway, from the Republican side, hello. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And the ranking member has an outstanding opening statement 

to put in the record. I would, rather than prove to you that my 

third grade teacher taught me to read aloud, I will ask unanimous 

consent to introduce it into the record and get right to the witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller can be found in the Appendix on page 34.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So be it. Great. 

So we will move forward. And today we have three witnesses before us. 

Let me make sure that I have your names correct, gentlemen. 

We are fortunate to have a panel of three experts. First, we will 

hear from Mr. Ted Dagne, an expert in African Affairs at the Congressional Research Service. Then we will hear from John 

Prendergast, the former director of African affairs at the National 

Security Council and co-founder of the non-governmental organization The Enough Project that seeks to raise awareness and develop 

policy solutions that prevent genocide and crimes against humanity 

in the Congo and in the region. And, lastly, we are joined by Adam 

Komorowski of the Mines Advisory Group [MAG], an international 

NGO [Non-Governmental Organization] that works to limit the 

spread of illicit weapons used by illegally armed groups in the region. 

Thank you for appearing before the subcommittee and discussing 

this critically important topic. And I believe we will adhere to the 

5-minute rule, which means you can tell us whatever you want, 

summarize your statements within 5 minutes apiece, and then we 
3 

will go to questions. And we will be under the 5-minute rule for 

the members of the committee also. 

So we will start with Mr. Dagne, please. 

STATEMENT OF TED DAGNE, SPECIALIST IN AFRICAN 

AFFAIRS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Mr. DAGNE. Chairwoman Sanchez, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your 

committee. 

I have a longer statement for the record. I will simply summarize 

my statement focused on the rebel groups and their activities and 

if there are any linkages to international or original terrorist organizations. 

But to give you an overview briefly of the Congo, the Congo has 

been in political humanitarian turmoil for the past, not decade, for 

the past at least four decades. This is in large part due I think to 

neglect and to the government’s inability, successive governments’ 

inability to govern in a democratic way. 

When I talk about neglect, it is basically the main source, the 

root cause of the problem. For many Congolese governments over 

the years and political leaders Kinshasa was for them the country, 

not Goma, not Kisangani, no other places. But the other important 

thing to point out is that the government in power often provides 

the benefits to those who are close to them and not to the people. 

To give you an example, back in the mid 1990s, 1996, I went to 

Goma, the place where the two major wars started, with a congressional delegation. That was the first liberated town in 1996. And 

I met Laurent Kabila, who would become president a year later. 

And I asked him, he was in a mansion, lush green lawns, gold-plated sofas, you name it. Outside, no electricity, not a single paved 

road, and people dependent on food aid. 

I asked him, I said, ‘‘aren’t you concerned that you live in this 

mansion while your people outside are still suffering?’’ 

His response was, ‘‘I am their leader; when I become president, 

things will change.’’ Things did not change. There was more war, 

poverty and suffering for the Congolese people. 

I don’t want to give you, you know, this picture of a Congo in a 

total chaos. I think you find, over the past at least seven, eight 

years, some relative stability in other parts of Congo, and the political conditions have improved significantly, but not for eastern 

Congo. 

You had an agreement in 2003 whereby the major rebel groups 

were incorporated into the political process. You had elections that 

were held in 2006, and the next one is expected in 2011, a year 

from now. 

But I think what is important to point out is that the Congo crisis wasn’t simply a crisis for the Congolese, but it was for the entire region. In fact, in the 90s, we used to refer to it as Africa’s 

Third World War because you had over half a dozen African countries involved in the Congolese conflict on one side or the other. 

Over the past several years, things have changed and relationships between the Congolese government and that of their neighbors. Rwanda, once considered enemy number one by Congo, they 
4 

are now allies. And in fact, in 2009, they conducted a joint military 

offensive against some of the rebel groups internally. 

But the most important thing to point out is that the Congolese 

problem is tied to the existence of rebel groups, or we call them 

negative groups, who do not really have a political agenda, but 

some of them basically embrace the idea of terrorizing the civilian 

population. The main targets have been civilian population. I will 

go through some of them, some of the main groups. 

The first one I would say is the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda [FDLR]. It is a Rwandese rebel group. The leadership of the FDLR consist of those who belong to what we used to 

refer to as the Interahamwe militia, the militia that carried out the 

genocide in 1994, and the former Rwandese army leadership. They 

have been in operation in eastern Congo for over a decade and a 

half. Their main objective is to terrorize the civilian population, 

particularly the Tutsi, and also to hopefully overthrow the government of Rwanda, their main operation from Congo. 

The other group is the National Congress for the Defense of the 

People [CNDP]. This is a Congolese group with some Rwandese involved. This group has also been operational in eastern Congo for 

several years. Their main objective, they claim, was to defend the 

Tutsi against the FDLR. In 2009, the joint offensive by the 

Rwandese and Congolese government was targeting the FDLR and 

the CNDP. 

The leader of the CNDP, Laurent Nkunda, was once an ally of 

the Rwandese government. Shortly after the military offensive 

began, he ran to the border with Rwanda expecting that he would 

be welcomed, and instead, he was arrested, and he still is under 

house arrest in Rwanda. 

The CNDP no longer exists as a cohesive group. A number of 

their fighters have been integrated into the Congolese army and a 

number of others have basically functioned independently of the organization. 

The other group is the Allied Democratic Forces, ADF. That is 

a Ugandan Muslim group operational near the border with Uganda. They don’t have a lot of military power, but one must point out 

that the ADF had been engaged in terrorist activities as early as 

the mid-1990s in Uganda. They have carried out a number of 

bombings in Kampala and other places in 1998. 

ADF is also the one organization that has a link now with alShabaab, the Somali group that carried out the attack in Kampala. 

In June, the Congolese forces launched an offensive against the 

ADF, and they were able to obtain documentation and equipment 

that linked them directly to al-Shabaab. That relationship still exists, and a number of ADF operatives are currently in custody suspected of the attack, the Kampala attack, in July of this year. 

The other group is the Mai Mai militia. It is a loosely grouped 

set of militia. No political objectives, basically carrying out attacks 

against civilian U.N. peacekeepers or anyone they think that they 

can get money, food or whatever benefits that they can get out of 

it. 

The Lord’s Resistance Army, another Rwandan group, is also 

operational in Congo. But the LRA [Lord’s Resistance Army] is also 

very much operational in the Central African Republic and in parts 
5 

of South Sudan. It has been weakened over the past 5 years but 

remains a threat to the civilian population. No linkage with international terrorist organizations at this point. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Dagne, you are about 3 minutes over. 

Mr. DAGNE. I am done. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dagne can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. I am sure we can come back to your report 

and ask you specific questions with respect to it. 

Our next speaker, Mr. Prendergast, please. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PRENDERGAST, FORMER DIRECTOR OF 

AFRICAN AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Thanks very much, Chairwoman Sanchez, 

and the members of the subcommittee. 

Like Mr. Dagne, I will submit my written testimony for the 

record and make an oral statement. 

I just returned from the Congo, from the eastern Congo, 48 hours 

ago. My team and I interviewed a number of women and girls who 

recounted their tales of horror involving mass rape and other terrible atrocities. Mass rape has become the signature crime against 

humanity in this war. It is a war that is driven primarily by the 

exploitation of minerals, as you said in your opening statement, 

and they are minerals that power our cell phones and our laptops 

that we all use every day. 

Now, unlike most of the conflicts that I have worked on for the 

last 25 years in Africa, this one we have a direct connection, a direct responsibility, because of our demand for these minerals in the 

products that we use every day. So, because of that direct link, we 

therefore have a potential influence and a potential opportunity to 

help bring that war to an end if we change that relationship between consumers and producers on the ground there. 

I don’t want to give you a laundry list of things that the United 

States should do. This isn’t Afghanistan. This isn’t Iraq. We have 

very limited resources at this juncture in our history. 

So I want to focus on two things that I think, with U.S. leadership and a small investment, that we could actually help catalyze 

real change on the ground in the Congo and bring an end to some 

of the most horrific violence that we have ever seen on the face of 

the earth against women and girls. 

These two things are mineral certification and Security Sector 

Reform, SSR. Let’s start with the latter one, with SSR. 

The Congolese army, and Ted, Mr. Dagne, was talking a bit 

about that, the Congolese army is the biggest—one of the biggest 

sources of instability on the ground in human rights violations in 

the country. So if we try to work around the army in whatever we 

do as a government in our investments, we will have no impact. We 

need to take the challenge of reforming that army head-on. 

And we should start with a major investment in 

professionalization and training of the army in coordination with 

other governments. In particular, we have this incredible comparative advantage, I think, in military justice, and AFRICOM could 

play a credible role in building that military justice system. We 

have got to bring this state of impunity that soldiers have on the 
6 

ground in Congo to an end in some way, shape or form. And you 

can begin to do that through the infusion of resources and support 

and training for the justice system within the army. 

Until the army, I think, gets reformed, we are going to see this 

violence, particularly sexual violence, remain at epidemic levels. 

Now, this isn’t a novel idea. We have tried little bits and pieces 

of army reform over the last decade. So what’s different? The critical difference, I think, is that we are finally making efforts internationally to expose and undermine the mafia networks that control the mineral smuggling industries that end up exporting these 

minerals into the products that we use. 

Now, the military in the Congo is knee-deep in these mafia networks, and until we address, therefore, until we address the economic roots of the conflict, of violence, of state dysfunction, we have 

no chance of building legitimate government institutions, like a reformed military and police. 

Now, the good news is that the U.S. Congress has taken the lead 

in addressing these economic roots. For the first time in Congo’s 

history, we actually have efforts under way to try to address that 

relationship of how we extract Congo’s rich natural resource base. 

Section 1502 of the Wall Street Reform Bill Act deals—dealt directly with the link between the violence in the Congo and our electronics products and other things we use every day. The next steps, 

now that that bill has passed and President Obama has signed it, 

are to ensure that the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] 

regulations that are implement—that will demonstrate or that will 

modify how that bill is implemented, those SEC regulations have 

to be strong. And Members of Congress have a great role to play 

in ensuring that that is the case. 

And for the U.S., particularly led by Secretary Clinton, who visited Congo and has repeatedly talked about the importance of it to 

her as an issue for her, for her leadership, is for the U.S. to take 

the lead in creating an internationally negotiated certification, mineral certification, scheme, which will involve the industry, involve 

governments and civil society organizations, just like the blood diamonds. 

You know, ten years ago, when governments internationally 

worked together with the diamond industry and created a system 

to weed out blood diamonds, that gave people in Sierra Leone a 

chance and Liberia and Angola a chance, those wars were over in 

two years, all three of them. 

This is the same thing. If we deal with those economic roots, we 

have a chance then to work on all the kinds of things that this 

committee has a direct role to play and, particularly, army reform. 

So these are the two keys: Deal with the economic roots of violence and build a legitimate security sector in Congo, so that the 

army becomes a protector, not a predator, to the people in the 

Congo. If the U.S. does these two things, I would argue, the odds 

for peace in the Congo increase dramatically. It is not an exaggeration to say that millions of Congolese lives hang in the balance in 

terms of what we do or don’t do in the Congo. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Prendergast can be found in the 

Appendix on page 44.] 
7 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Prendergast. 

I am going to turn this over now to my very able colleague, Mr. 

Smith. 

But I have just a quick question. Mr. Prendergast, when you 

mentioned mafia network, were you using mafia as an adjective or 

as a noun? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. That is a great question. I think it is more 

of an adjective describing the nature of the illicit violent extractive 

networks that are part and parcel of getting those minerals out 

through the region into the international marketplace. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. Great. That is what I thought. But I just 

wanted to make sure you weren’t going after the Sicilians. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. 

Mr. SMITH. Sorry, Mr. Komorowski. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ADAM KOMOROWSKI, REGIONAL HEAD OF OPERATIONS, AFRICA MINES ADVISORY GROUP (MAG) INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Thank you very much. 

As per the previous speakers, I will provide you with a brief summary of my submitted written testimony. 

Thank you very much for inviting me to address the subcommittee on behalf of the Mines Advisory Group on issues relating to the conflict landscape of the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

In the testimony, I am going to cover a number of operational 

issues and draw on the six years of experience and learning that 

we have gathered from our work on the ground. 

As mentioned before, DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] 

has expansive porous borders. To put that into context, it shares 

a total of 10,730 kilometers of border with nine countries, many of 

which are experiencing or have experienced significant instability. 

Across the country and in the east of Congo in particular, ongoing conflicts and tribal allegiances mean that official political borders with other countries can become very blurred. Conflicts regularly flare up in border areas, with easy access to arms exacerbating and, in many cases, fueling violence. 

Armed groups, as, again, already referenced, from neighboring 

countries, such as Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda continue to operate out to the largely ungoverned spaces in eastern Congo. The 

trafficking and easy availability of small arms and light weapons 

substantially contributes to the continued instability and the armament of these groups. 

Furthermore, a recent UNDP [United Nations Development Program] report estimates that there are approximately 300,000 weapons in civilian hands in eastern Congo. However, the quantity of 

arms currently in the hands of armed rebel groups operating in 

this region is unknown. Both the U.N. Group of Experts on Congo 

and UNDP found that a significant number of these weapons originally came from military stockpiles due to thefts and seizures by 

armed groups, diversion of arms by military officers, and desertion 

and demobilization of military personnel. 

Since 2007, with the support of donors, including the Department 

of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, MAG has 

been involved in extensive weapons and ammunition destruction 
8 

activities. Over this period, we have destroyed 718 tons of ammunition and more than 107,000 small arms and light weapons. 

We believe that a cautious and pragmatic approach to working 

with the army is absolutely essential to making progress on the 

critical issues of weapons management and disposal. MAG works 

in close collaboration with the FARDC [Forces Arme ́es de la 

Re ́publique De ́mocratique du Congo], taking a consistent line of 

pragmatic engagements. And this strategic decision has paid dividends to date in terms of the success of our conventional weapons 

management and disposal program. 

We coordinate with the military in several ways; at a strategic 

level, through national norm setting and training, cooperation in 

regards to the safe management of ammunition and arms depots, 

coordination of ammunition and arms destruction, and support to 

security sector reform. 

The military is acutely aware that it does not have the capacity 

to adequately manage its ammunition and arms stockpiles. They 

understand the risk that poorly managed stockpiles can pose to 

their own security, as well as to the security of the civilian population. In recent years, the military has experienced several explosive incidents in their ammunition stockpiles which has resulted in 

hundreds of casualties. 

MAG also coordinates closely with the relevant Department of 

Defense actors in the Congo, including relevant U.S. Embassy personnel and AFRICOM, and we are currently exploring opportunities to work further in conjunction with U.S. deployments in regard 

to explosive ordnance disposal training of military personnel. 

We facilitate and support the Department of Defense’s Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency missions wherever possible across all of 

our programs. And we believe that the long-term presence we have 

established and the strong relations with local, national and regional bodies and authorities provides us with often unique access 

and opportunities for constructive and collaborative work. 

The example of Camp Ngashi in northwest Congo is a good example of the threat posed by poorly managed stockpiles. In June 

2007, a military ammunitions stockpile exploded. The initial explosion caused a huge fire which burned intensely for at least six 

hours, setting off numerous subsequent large explosions. The facility housed large- and small-scale weapons, small-arms ammunition, different caliber mortars and rockets up to high explosive aerial bombs. Ammunition was also ejected up to three and a half kilometers outside of the camp. As a consequence, three people were 

killed, around 100 injured, and over 200 families displaced. 

Unexploded ordnance scattered across the densely populated town, 

seriously damaging schools, government and military facilities. 

MAG emergency response teams were then dispatched to the area 

and tasked with unexploded ordnance clearance, which took many 

further months. 

Now, whilst the movement of arms across borders remains a critical concern, there is substantial research concluding that the majority of arms used by armed groups come from military stockpiles. 

A recent report concluded that unless the Congolese security forces 

significantly improve the effectiveness of their stockpile management, the extent to which the current arms embargo, which places 
9 

no restrictions on arms acquisitions by the FARDC, can maintain 

peace and stability in the region will be limited. As such, securing 

and marking existing FARDC armed stockpiles is as critical as is 

securing borders. 

Based on our current operations, MAG is convinced that the destruction of surplus arms, building a successful arms management 

capacity and the necessary infrastructure in armories, and the 

marking of operational arms with a unique country code are central to curbing the illicit sale and trafficking of weapons in the 

Congo. 

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its time and 

the opportunity to present on our range of activities and approaches to dealing with the unique challenges that this vast and 

unstable country presents. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Komorowski can be found in the 

Appendix on page 54.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

I appreciate it, and I appreciate this committee and the chairwoman agreeing to have this hearing. 

I think one of the biggest issues that we are trying to address 

here is to draw attention to the situation in the eastern Congo. It 

does not get the publicity that some others do. But as you gentlemen have very ably explained, it is a huge, huge problem. It is 

probably the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, given the 

suffering that has happened there and continues to happen there. 

And yet it is not something that is regularly discussed in Congress, 

much less in the United States. 

So what we are trying to do in the subcommittee in part is draw 

attention to the problem and then find ways that we in Congress 

and we in the U.S. can help to alleviate it. And I think that is sort 

of the—it is sort of a bad news/good news. Certainly you look at 

what has happened there in the last, you know, four decades, you 

look at the violence in the area—I led a delegation that stopped in 

Goma last year, and the violence against women is I think the 

thing that stands out as the most appalling, the rapes that are just 

accepted as a matter of course. It is an overwhelmingly devastating 

thing to witness and to see. But beyond that, you have all the violent gangs roaming around, as Mr. Dagne explained. And it is a situation that cries out for attention. 

The good news is there are a lot of people over there who are 

making a positive difference. I met with Heal Africa as one of the 

NGOs that is working specifically on changing the culture of rape. 

And that is really what it is. It is beyond just the fact that there 

are some, you know, gangs roaming around doing this. It is far too 

accepted by the general population. And trying to change that and 

give the support to the women necessary to change that culture is 

a very positive thing. 

And there are a lot of other NGOs that are actively involved 

there. I have done work with the Eastern Congo Initiative [ECI], 

which is focusing specifically on this region and has laid out some 

pretty clear goals, two of which Mr. Prendergast focused on. One 

is the conflict minerals issue; second, being helped with security 

and governance but then also continuing to provide our support for 
10 

the elections that are coming up to make sure they are done in a 

stable way and, you know, make sure that we stay active in that 

region and get involved by making sure that we maintain a regular 

envoy from our State Department to the region, is the fourth goal 

that they state. I think if we stay involved in that, we can truly 

make a difference here. We can save lives, and we can turn this 

region around. 

Because the other thing that really struck me about this region, 

it is a beautiful place. It is rich in natural resources. Certainly the 

minerals you mentioned, but also agriculture, the Great Lakes region is there. This is an area that has massive potential for a very, 

very positive outcome for the people of that region and for the 

world if we can just help them realize it. 

And then I do believe we have an interest beyond just the humanitarian crisis. Certainly, the conflict minerals issue, given the 

fact that we do purchase those items. But this subcommittee’s particular jurisdiction is on counterterrorism. And the instability in a 

region opens the door for radical extremist groups. And as Ms. Sanchez mentioned in her opening statement, they are certainly recruiting in that area, even if they have not been that active. 

If this region explodes into instability, it is bad for global stability and bad for United States national security interests. So that 

is why we are trying to pay attention to the region. 

I want to ask specifically, Mr. Komorowski, to follow up on the 

issue of the unsecured ammo dumps, what is being done and what 

should be being done to help turn that situation around and get 

better security on ammunitions? 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Okay. Thank you for the question. 

We as an organization have our efforts, and we are very grateful 

for the support of the Office of Weapons Movement and Abatement 

to do that. Fundamentally it is about engaging at different levels. 

The perspective that I like to present and that is key to our organization is an operational one. So we work directly in Kinshasa with 

the FARDC, with a number of high-ranking representatives, both 

to look at the depots that they have there, and we also have teams 

that then work across the provinces, both doing destruction and 

also doing essential armory reconstruction work, as well as basic 

training—— 

Mr. SMITH. Can I ask—sorry to interrupt, is this a problem 

where you have got depots that have just wound up being, you 

know, abandoned, neglected, or is this a situation where they are 

ones that the Congo is trying to maintain, they just don’t have sufficient security around it, or it sounds like both? But. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Exactly, it is a mixture of both. The definition 

sometimes of an armory or a cache or a stockpile, sometimes it is 

literally four walls, no roof, and then full to the brim of various 

kinds of ammunition; mortars, rockets, grenades, occasionally, and 

we do discover them, MANPADS [Man-portable Air-defense Systems] as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Just left there by the government or, in some cases, 

left there by rebel groups? 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Frequently by rebel groups. And actually they 

are often resupply points. And as mentioned, a number of the 

groups, earlier today, such as the LRA, we have come across a 
11 

number of what we are told by the community—we work very 

closely with the community to try and get a good insight into the 

legacy, into the history, of what we are finding there. And often 

they are our greatest source of information, directing us to where 

we can find these sources of ammunition, unsecured weapons, and 

so forth. 

But there is also, and it is recognized a lot within the reporting, 

not just that which we provide as an organization, by a lot of advocacy groups that are active on the ground, that the insecurity of existing military stockpiles is a key problem as well. Small Arms Survey recognized in their yearbook, not for 2010 but 2009, the diversion from stocks, from official stocks, often police, often army, is 

one of the key providers, some of the fuel to the ongoing fire. So 

the nature of them is very diverse. We work in our own way as an 

organization with the resources we have. 

To come back to another point of the question, what should be 

done? I think it is, as Mr. Prendergast mentioned, security sector 

reform. This is a component of that. So it is about the wider modalities of that as well. What we are doing is a part of the puzzle. Obviously, we believe that it should be done with greater coordination 

and with greater breadth. But it is only a part of the picture. It 

does require the broader elements of security sector reform if it is 

going to have a long and lasting successful legacy. 

Mr. SMITH. I am out of time. I have more questions, but I will 

come back to them after we get to the other members. 

Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here this morning—this afternoon. 

Mr. Prendergast, can you give me some sense of the scope of minerals production? In other words, it would probably be a different 

percentage for each of the discrete minerals, but how big a part of 

the world’s supply of these minerals is the Congo, and just to help 

me understand the scope of what they are doing? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Thank you for asking. 

There are four particular minerals that come from eastern Congo 

that bleed into the world supply that end up in all these electronics 

products we are talking about. Gold is one of them. And then there 

are what we call the three Ts: tin, tantalum, and tungsten. Tin, my 

guess is around 10 or 15 percent of the world supply, Congo. Tantalum is the big one. Because Australia withdrew its exports from 

the market last year, began to stop exporting, because they could 

not compete with the slave wages and this kind of criminal network that produces the tantalum, that exports the tantalum from 

Congo, the share of global, the Congo’s share of global supply skyrocketed somewhere in the neighborhood of well over 50 percent. 

And then in terms of Tungsten, it is probably another 10 or 15 percent. 

So, in other words, there are lots of other suppliers, but Congo, 

because it is so cheap, remains a favorite for the refiners in Asia 

for buying these things. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Any sense for what the gross revenues for the bad 

guys represent? 
12 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. It is so opaque. We have done some assessments and started to look. I mean, the Congolese senate, for example, did a significant report. They estimated it $2 billion a year. I 

think that is an overstatement. Hundreds of millions of dollars accruing to the armed groups is a safe estimate, but it is a wild 

guess, because there really is almost no trade that goes on in the 

legitimate market. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Ted, maybe you have got a sense of this. The culture of rape or the weapon of choice of rape must result in conceptions. What is the experience of those children once they are born? 

Are they readily accepted into the mothers’ families or what—you 

know, we are going to be—you know, those started 15, 20 years 

ago. They are going to be reaching young adulthood and that kind 

of thing. What has been the experience of the children that result 

from those rapes? Or is it a big number? 

Mr. DAGNE. In the case of Congo, it is really very difficult at this 

juncture to give you really an accurate assessment of, you know, 

this generation of kids, you know, growing up; are they accepted 

or rejected? But I can tell you, in the region, and some of whom 

have carried out this rape and attack, some of them came from 

Rwanda. During the genocide, a number of the Tutsi were raped 

deliberately by the Hutus. And there were tens and thousands of 

kids born. And I met a number of them. And what is amazing is 

that—not only that society accepted them, but senior government 

officials themselves adopted deliberately those kids. 

Mr. CONAWAY. OK. 

Mr. DAGNE. So, culturally, it is not like, you know, you are born 

because of rape, and therefore, you are not accepted. I haven’t seen 

that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Good. OK. 

In 2008, AFRICOM helped plan and lead Operation Lightning 

Thunder, which was a multi-country attack on, I guess, the Lord’s 

Resistance Army. Can you give me some sense of did that work? 

Did it help, Mr. Prendergast, to professionalize in some small way 

the Congolese military as they work alongside AFRICOM’s folks? 

And could it be expanded, or should it be expanded to go after 

some of these other targeted groups? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. It did not work. There was clearly some advance notice. Joseph Kony got out in time. The leadership of the 

LRA remains untouched since then. 

President Obama has just released his plan, as a result of the 

congressional bill that was passed this year on the Lord’s Resistance Army. The bill is insufficient. It is inadequate to deal with the 

serious security threat that LRA poses to people of Southern 

Sudan, Central African Republic and the Congo. 

And so our view is that there needs to be, as we look at this plan 

that the President has put forward, and particularly as Congress 

in its oversight capacity looks at it, particularly this committee 

looks at it, we need to really take a very hard look at how it is implemented so that resources are provided to give a fighting chance 

to the militaries in the region that are on the front lines of trying 

to contain this significant threat, because up until now, what we 

have provided has been grossly insufficient and incommensurate to 

the damage done to civilian populations. 
13 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

I have a second round as well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your holding this hearing. 

A couple of years ago, the National Geographic had on its cover 

a picture of poached and murdered gorillas. And incidentally, in 

the article, they mentioned that 5 million human beings had been 

killed in the Congo. That was not the cover story. And I am all for 

gorillas, but, you know, for Americans not to understand that this 

has been the bloodiest conflict on earth is horrifying. Because as 

Samantha Power pointed out in her book, you know, genocides happen more frequently than we like to admit. 

I think the frustration that I feel is, what can you do to solve 

it? If you read a book like Dambisa Moyo’s ‘‘Dead Aid,’’ she pretty 

much condemns pretty much all government-to-government aid. 

And maybe she is wrong. Maybe she has an overly pessimistic 

viewpoint, but we have seen a lot of the kleptocracy. And I think 

Mr. Dagne points out his visit with Kabila in 1996, the gold-plated 

sofas and Jacuzzis, and you know, little of that help trickles down 

to the average people. Unfortunate. With Mr. Smith, I have been 

to Goma. It is unimaginable the conditions that must exist out in 

the jungle. 

So I think what we are searching for here are constructive paths 

to take. You know, this humanitarian operation by MONUSCO 

[United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] may have done more to harm the 

U.N.’s reputation than any other undertaking it has ever involved 

in. This is their largest single commitment, and you know, it is 

problems galore. So how do we solve this problem? 

How do we even know simple things like who we are talking to? 

You know, recently in Afghanistan, we thought we were apparently 

dealing with the top-ranking member of the Taliban. It turned out 

to be an imposter. How do we even know elemental things like 

that? 

And when it comes to identifying and shutting off or appropriately regulating coltan or these other minerals it is—are the 

Chinese better at figuring out how to secure supplies, because the 

last time we were there, I think we heard that they had engaged 

in some sort of long-term contract arrangement and promised to 

build a road. You know, what is going on here? What could guide 

us as policymakers to make a constructive difference? The ball is 

in your court. Anybody? 

Mr. Prendergast. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. I think there is a huge opportunity here now. 

I mean, if—we could throw billions of dollars at this problem, we 

could throw tens of thousands of peacekeeping troops, it wouldn’t 

make a difference in a place as large as Congo with the history of 

the crisis there. 

What has to be done is to change the incentive structure that exists there now. The current incentive is for violent, illegal extraction of minerals. If you have the biggest guns and you are willing 

to use terrible atrocities as your primary military tactic, you can 

secure either access to mining or the smuggling routes and tax the 
14 

smuggling routes along the way and smuggle these minerals out of 

there; that is how you make money in the Congo today. That is 

what fuels the war. And the end markets are us. So that is the inescapable conclusion. 

So what has to happen if anything is really going to change there 

is you have got to flip the incentive structure. If the world demand 

for these minerals says, okay, we are only going to buy minerals 

that are peacefully and legally mined, then it creates a different incentive structure for the people on the ground. I don’t see how else 

we can alter that physical dynamic, because we simply don’t have 

the resources or the troops internationally to make the kind of security—to change the security equation on the ground in the same 

way that our ability to affect how people make money, how that 

gravy train gets serviced, as we can if we push for these SEC regulations to be strong and we push for a real certification scheme like 

we did with the blood diamonds. 

Mr. COOPER. How long do we wait before we know whether that 

has had an effect or not? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. It is in our hands really. I mean, the SEC is 

going to promulgate its regulations in the next couple of months. 

It has already shaken up the industry. It has shaken up the armed 

groups. People are trying to figure out—I mean, I just literally 

came from there. Everyone is affected by it. They are trying to figure out what the SEC is going to do. Every minerals trader, every 

military official that I talk to knows exactly what is going on in 

Washington. 

In 150 years, go back to King Leopold, go back to Mobutu Sese 

Seko. Nobody ever tried to deal with how the world was relating 

to Congo in terms of our extraction of one of the richest natural resource bases in the world. And we wonder why this country is completely and totally in crisis for the last century and a half. It is because of the relationship. 

Now Congress has made this first step. We have got to back it 

up; the executive branch has to back it up with real leadership 

internationally. 

Mr. COOPER. So this is a celebratory hearing because we solved 

the problem if we have proper enforcement? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. We have identified the problem for the first 

time, and Congress has taken the first step in moving towards 

what could be possibly a catalytic approach to addressing the solution. I really actually think, in 25 years of visiting, working and living in the Congo, I think this is the first time anyone has taken 

it seriously, and I applaud this Congress for doing so. 

Mr. COOPER. Do the other witnesses agree with this optimistic 

assessment? 

Mr. DAGNE. I have a slightly different approach to this. Yes, it 

may contribute to a certain degree to bring about an end to the resources that some of the rebels or the commanders use. 

But, at the same time, you have to remember that what is killing 

Congolese, is raping Congolese, is not the AK–47, is not the conflict 

mineral resources; it is the culture. It is the ideology that is doing 

it. 
15 

If you take away all the AK–47s, all the ammunitions, they 

would still rape people. They would still use the machetes. They 

would still have instability. 

We have to start to think out of the box and say, how is it that 

we can help? At the same time, we can’t be the solution to the 

problem in the region. The region itself, the country itself, must 

work to find a solution. We can help, but we cannot solve. 

Mr. SMITH. I think, if I could, I want to get to Mr. Murphy, but 

I think my comment would be here, no there is no one solution 

here. 

But I do think that going after the money that funds the rebel 

groups will make an enormous difference. And as you mentioned, 

when we went after the, you know, blood diamonds, conflict diamonds, that had a distinct impact in the region where that was put 

in place. You know, the purpose of this hearing isn’t to say that 

we have the idea and it is going to automatically solve the problem. 

We are looking to make progress. This is one big area where we 

can make progress. 

The bigger area that has been mentioned is reliable security and 

governance. And that is where the efforts of many of the NGOs 

that are working with the local population, this has been 

ungoverned space for a long time in which various criminal elements and rebel groups have filled the vacuum. So getting decent 

security and governance is also a critical step. 

But this is not an insignificant move to take some of the money 

out of the equation if we do it successfully. 

With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I actually was hoping to dig in a little bit more, Mr. Prendergast, 

on some of the parallels with what we saw with the blood diamonds and some of the differences, whether they are cultural differences, that we may see in eastern Congo versus what we saw 

in Sierra Leone or Liberia or Angola or other places. 

Can you give just us a little more color in terms of what we need 

to be doing? What we can do at this point—you talked about us 

weighing in the with the SEC, but what should we be thinking 

about as that is going on? 

And then, Mr. Dagne, if you will comment on maybe some of the 

cultural differences that you see between some of the places where 

we have seen some success with restricting access to mineral 

wealth and conflict and what might be different as we try to think 

of solutions in this instance. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Thanks, Congressman. 

I think, you know, that the solution, and I want to second Congressman Smith’s point—I mean, this is just—this is a catalytic 

element of an overall set of recommendations. You mentioned the 

ECI initiative. There are all kinds of issues that we have to address in Congo. This is, we think, just one of the crucial ones that, 

as a prerequisite, helps to build a momentum towards helping to 

solve a lot of the problem. 

The key, I think, Congressman Murphy, is certification. And that 

is, you look at and try to draw the analogy with the West African 

issues related to blood diamonds. When there was a decision that 

we would no longer purchase the diamonds that were actually help-
16 

ing to fuel the terrible violence in Angola, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, then there was a long process. It didn’t just overnight. We had 

the United States, Britain and many other countries work with regional countries and the companies, particularly De Beers, and civil 

society groups that have a vested interest in working on the publicity around the terrible atrocities recurring, they came up with a 

certification scheme that eventually created a way for you to weed 

out the bad from the good. And that has now, 10 years later, led 

to three countries that are at peace that have, you know, fairly 

well-functioning diamond markets that help contribute to development. 

Mr. MURPHY. Do we have a partner in eastern Congo who could 

be the kind of certifiable producer of any of these minerals, or is 

it all so much chaos that you don’t even have anybody that could 

meet a certification process? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. That is the good news, is that the region has 

begun to brace itself for the fact that major change has to occur. 

So a regionally led initiative, and I will defer—I bow to Mr. 

Dagne’s point about you got to defer—because at the end of the 

day, if the region isn’t buying in, forget it, is this international certification effort that has begun with the Great Lake states. So the 

Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, a number of states have begun a process. 

The acronym is ICGLR [International Conference on the Great 

Lakes Region]. And they have put together the bare bones, the essentials, of a certification scheme in principle. Now they need a 

dance partner. Now they need the United States and other countries that are end users of these minerals to come in very strongly 

and work with the governments in constructing as airtight a system as possibly can be created in this very difficult environment, 

get the industry to buy in, everyone from Apple to Hewlett Packard 

to Dell. All these companies suddenly realize that they can’t continue with business as usual because of the bill, because of the 

Wall Street reform bill and the section on this thing. They want 

to be involved in this. 

So it just requires somebody to take the lead. And we think that 

the United States could play that critical role because we are the 

biggest, in gross dollar terms, consumers of the end user—end 

users of the product—of the minerals that are being produced 

there. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Dagne, in terms of some of the parallels we are 

talking about with the blood diamonds, are the cultural issues parallel, and are there some lessons from what we saw that maybe 

worked in some of the other places? Or are the culture issues very 

different and not very useful in terms of things to learn about the 

approach here? 

Mr. DAGNE. I think what I meant by cultural is not to suggest 

that this is strictly a Congolese or Rwandese cultural issue. I am 

talking about the culture of violence, the ideology of violence, which 

is something new that we are dealing with. In comparison to the 

other regions, definitely you had a cultural violence in Sierra Leone 

and Liberia and Angola. But if one goes back and looks at, you 

know, how did we end those wars, is it because of the blood diamond, ending the blood? No. We have to be practical and say, those 

bloody wars dragged sometimes for over 20 years, and at the end, 
17 

it was a negotiated settlement, whether it is with the MPLA 

[Movimento Popular de Libertac ̧a ̃o de Angola] and UNITA [Unia ̃o 

Nacional para a Independeˆncia Total de Angola] in Angola or Sierra Leone or for Liberia. 

I think, when I suggested, you know, that the conflict mineral 

legislation and certification process would help, but I think if we 

put our hope in that, you know, we are going to be disappointed 

because before the diamonds, before the gold, you had violence 

there; even in their absence, you would have violence. 

The other thing also we need to take into consideration is that 

the certification process only applies to American companies. Who 

is going to prevent China or any other company from doing business? That will continue. 

The other important thing to remember is also, what are the impacts on the locals, not the rebels, not the, you know, corrupt commanders, but the millions of Congolese who depend on these resources for centuries? Do we have an alternative mechanism for 

them when the decision that we take could affect their livelihood, 

you know? Is there a mechanism in place to say, okay, here are the 

alternatives, this is what we are going to do? 

I think the important thing to think about is, you know, the 

countries in the region itself, they have been doing a number of 

things. We need to be able to coordinate those activities in order 

to have a maximum impact. Look at the decision of Rwanda and 

Congo just a year and a half ago to jointly move against the negative forces. They were able to reduce their, you know, effectiveness 

significantly and dislodge them from a number of areas. 

Now, if you have a more coordinated effort like this, you take 

away all these negative forces, some of whom can be integrated 

into society; over 20,000 civilians returned just in 1 year because 

they were being held hostage by those negative forces. Then you 

need to have an infrastructure in place to govern so that the basic 

necessities for the people can be provided, including security. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

And I think we would certainly agree that there needs to be a 

more comprehensive solution. 

I do think the money drives a fair amount of it. And I guess what 

you would try to do is you would try to set up, through the certification process, a way for legitimate people to get access to that. It 

is not the entire issue, but I think money drives a lot of this. Well, 

it certainly drives the criminal activity. But I think also it gives the 

resources to the rebel groups out there to sustain them. They have 

to find resources. 

I mean, this is true of any insurgency. Cutting off the source of 

that money is at least a critical first step. 

But I totally agree with Mr. Dagne that it is not sufficient in and 

of itself. 

Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You mentioned that the—we caught the head of the CNDP and 

tried to get back into Rwanda, and since then, that organization 

has ceased to be a functioning organization. It may have splintered. 

And this committee is terrorism and unconventional threats. We 

have got some experience with cutting the heads off of snakes. 
18 

Should that be a focus as well, to go after the leadership of these 

other negative groups, as you called them? 

Mr. DAGNE. I think it is important because of the leadership of 

some of these rebel groups, and I think I would describe them also 

as terrorist groups. Now, they are not being described as terrorist 

groups because they are active in Africa, but the act that they 

carry out, according to any legal definition, is terror against the civilians. And some of the leadership are here in the United States. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So the same kind of a—well, let me ask this, Mr. 

Prendergast or others. If we, as we should, deal with the certification of minerals, what is next? Where do these negative groups, 

rebel groups, terrorists, which I agree with you, Mr. Dagne, what 

do they do next? I mean, is it—they never just lay down, because 

it is far easier to hold a gun on somebody and make them work 

for you than it is to work yourself. And so, if we were able to effectively control that avenue, is there something else they pivot to 

that we then have to start Whack-A–Mole there? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. I think that, you know, the three main groups 

that Ted talked about in his testimony, the FDLR, the ADF and 

the LRA, the three main sort of foreign insurgent groups inside on 

Congolese territory, these three need to be subject to intensified 

counterinsurgency operations involving the governments in the region, involving the peacekeeping forces in the region. 

The efforts so far, again, we have already talked about the LRA, 

led by the Ugandan government, has eroded the LRA’s capacities. 

In other words, they used to be a fairly large, in the thousands, 

tens of thousands, over 10,000 fighters; now they are a band, a 

criminal band of a few hundred. They still do terrible damage in 

the places that they operate, but they have been eroded significantly by counterinsurgency operations. Now is the time to finish 

them off, to really cut that head of Joseph Kony and to find him 

and take him out the theater in some way or another. 

With the FDLR, which is the Rwandan militia that came across 

the border, as Ted talked about in the history, during 1994, during 

the genocide, the core capacity has been eroded dramatically. I 

mean, in 1994, there were 80,000 to 100,000 armed elements from 

the Rwandan—who committed—who perpetrated the Rwandan 

genocide, were running around the eastern Congo. Now there’s 

probably 4,000, maybe less. I mean, the numbers are wild estimates, 3,500 to 4,000. 

And their capacity has been eroded dramatically because of counterinsurgency operations, largely driven by the Rwandan government, though the humanitarian implications of these operations 

has been dramatically negative for the people of the Congo. Now 

that there are those 3,000 or 4,000 left, we need to target those operations, go after the international support that they have, as Ted 

said, and really find and hone the elements of the regional militaries and the peacekeeping forces to go after those elements to try 

to bring them down. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yeah, one of the tools that we use on the existing 

terrorist groups is we go after their banking relationships and 

those things. These organizations are sophisticated enough they 

are using the banking systems to facilitate cash-flow funds, or 

would that be an effective tack as well? 
19 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. It is very different I think because of the mineral smuggling. Because the FDLR has been—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. So they are cash basis? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST [continuing]. Ensconced in these areas and 

they are able to smuggle, particularly gold, through Uganda. I 

think that, we just need to figure out how we can get at that 

source, because as Congressman Smith said, if we don’t arrest the 

money issue, you know, we are just going to be whistling Dixie. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Give me a sense of what—you said Americans are 

the bulk of the end users. But as China and India’s economies 

grow, they will surpass us at some point. Give me a sense of what 

the percentage is of manufacturers based in China, India, and the 

United States. Can we get a sense of where that split comes? Because I agree that getting China—India maybe less so—but getting 

China to agree to these kind of sanctions may be a little more difficult. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. A terribly important question. And I just 

want to correct something that Ted said; the legislation that Congress passed was not just for American companies. It was anybody 

who wants to import into the United States. Now, because in the 

electronics arena, we have the highest end products in terms of 

consumers, China is not going to say, Hey, because we want to 

maintain some supplier who supplies 10 percent of the tin from 

Congo, we are not going to export to the United States anymore? 

That is not going to happen. They are already complying. They are 

trying to figure out how the smelters based in China and other 

countries can comply. 

So I think as long as we are affecting through the legislation and 

implementation, those people that want to import into the United 

States and work with our European allies to create similar legislative frameworks so that we are talking about a fairly large consumer base that is rejecting the purchase of minerals that come 

from violent and illegally extracted sources, I think we are going 

to have a chance of altering the entire marketplace, including India 

and China. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Can you talk a little bit about the U.N. mission 

there? It is not well thought of by the local population in terms of 

its efficacy because they don’t have a lot of authority, so their presence there is not thought of as having been that helpful, based on 

the people that I talked to when I was there. On the other hand, 

you know, there is concern, you know, if you simply pull them out, 

again, you are leaving a vacuum. 

How effective has the U.N. been? And, more importantly, going 

forward, what is the best course of action in terms of maintaining 

the mission or changing it or getting rid of it? 

And whoever. Mr. Komorowski, you haven’t spoken in a while. 

First crack there. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Thank you. Yeah, it takes more than a rebranding from MONUC [United Nations Organization Mission in 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo] to MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] to solve the problem. I absolutely endorse many 

of the points you made there. 
20 

I think there are a couple of points. There is no doubt that, to 

date, the perception—and it is a bit more than perception—the reality on the ground is that this force varies in size, but as has already been mentioned, one of the largest, if not the largest, standing U.N. force in the world to date. 

That is still not adequate for the kind of scale of—the physical 

geographical sale that we are talking about. But maybe there is a 

slightly different problem. It is not so much the numbers, but it is 

the focus. It is the targeting and also, bluntly, the terms of engagement. 

Mr. SMITH. At the most basic level, what do they do? They are 

there. What is their mission? What do they do? 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. They are there to provide security for the civilian population, with varying degrees of success. I will happily say 

one point for the record, the many times I have been there, I have 

met with many different members of the U.N. on the ground and 

of MONUSCO. Often, there is a real issue with the quality of the 

composition of the forces on the ground. They are not coming from 

some of the nations with the finest militaries that can provide 

them, and often so, you are not looking at individuals on the 

ground who are particularly thrilled at their mission status. 

We talked earlier about incentives and incentivizing, whether it 

be through the mineral supply chain or whether it be through security sector reform. We haven’t touched on DDR [Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration]. The same exists, I think, for that 

force on the ground. They are not properly equipped to do the job, 

but I also think it is about their tasking. And oftentimes, they are 

not in the right areas, and frequently as well, their terms of engagement and when they are going to go. The times where they are 

most needed, their remit does not allow them to get sufficiently engaged. I think that is probably as directly as I would put it. 

Mr. SMITH. And when does that mission complete? It is for a set 

amount of time. When is it up where it would have to either be renewed or end? Do you happen to know that? 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Not off the top of my head, no. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Dagne. 

Mr. DAGNE. It was just renewed it in May, so it would have to 

be renewed again next year in June. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Dagne, just quickly, do 

you think it should be renewed? What role should the U.N. play, 

going forward? 

Mr. DAGNE. Just to go back to answer your question about the 

effectiveness and whether they should be renewed or not, I think 

the record has been mixed. It is one of the largest U.N. peacekeeping missions in the world. Currently, you have over 19,000 

armed, uniformed personnel. I think they have done a number of 

good things. Their presence provided at least some relative stability 

and allow humanitarian delivery, and provided some protection to 

the civilians. In their absence, it would have been worse. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. 

Mr. DAGNE. At the same time, they could have done better. The 

security sector training that you are talking about is provided by 

the U.N. and so forth. I think it is important as you move forward, 

you know, is there a need to have such a large peacekeeping force 
21 

just to be there or can the mandate be changed in order to accommodate, I think, the needs on the ground. I think, in my view, perhaps a review of that is necessary, and the security council in May 

significantly restructured the mandate, and I am pretty sure, I 

think, come next year, you know, it has to be reviewed once again. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. Mr. Prendergast. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. From what I have seen on the ground, you 

know, one of the things that is positive is that they help keep the 

roads open and for commercial traffic in some places through their 

patrolling. That is a positive. It is sort of a byproduct of their existence and their presence on the ground. That’s not saying much. 

I think in individual areas, at the behest of particular commanders of units that are deployed into different places, they have 

done targeted capacity building for the FARDC for the Congolese 

army. That is a very helpful thing, and more of that could happen 

in terms of professionalization and respect for human rights of the 

Congolese army. 

Making decisions on the ground, operational decisions to protect 

civilians in localized areas, has made a difference. Most units don’t. 

And therefore, they are spectators for terrible human rights atrocities. So it is strengthening their mandate in New York so that you 

can strengthen the hands of commanders on the ground who want 

to do that kind of stuff is really important. 

And then, finally, something that has been missing all along is 

some kind of special forces capacity to actually undertake targeted 

military operations against both foreign-armed groups and Congolese-armed groups that are the spoilers for continuing violence and 

instability. 

So looking in the course of the next year for re-upping the 

MONUSCO mandate and looking at whether we can recruit a nation to contribute that kind of capacity, that would actually make, 

potentially make a difference in the overall scheme. 

Mr. SMITH. That is something our committee works on a great 

deal. We work with the Special Operations Command here in the 

U.S., and also internationally and NATO and other places, and it 

is a very specialized skill that not a lot of militaries possess and 

is very much in demand at the moment in many, many places. But 

certainly, I can see where that would be helpful. 

Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

How do I know, or how does the manufacturer know whether the 

tantalum in this phone is clean or not? Is it Australian, is it Congolese, is it clean Congolese? Each diamond is unique, but a fungible 

commodity like tantalum or tin or even refined tantalum or tin, 

how do you know? You just have to trust the supplier? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I don’t. If I could interrupt there, I don’t think 

technically each diamond is unique, but if you happen to have a diamond ring right now and were to look at, I think you would have 

the same basic problematic question of telling by looking at it, 

where it came from. I don’t think it is unique in that sense. I think 

it is a matter of, you know, regulating the supply chain aggressively. So correct me if I am wrong in that, but I don’t think there 

would be any difference in terms of the difficulties of making sure 
22 

that this is adhered to for diamonds than it would be for basic minerals. I could be wrong on that. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Already, the industry associations that a year 

ago were saying precisely what you were saying, Congressman, 

now are working very aggressively to try to comply with these regulations and talking directly to many of the groups, many of the 

companies’ senior executives and the people on the ground who are 

taking trips to Congo trying to figure out how to do it. There is 

much more clarity now, based on the United Nation’s panel of experts’ work, based on a lot of different organizations that have exposed how these supply chains work. It is not a big mystery. It 

might be a mystery to us sitting in Washington, but it is not a 

mystery to those that actually take the time to study these supply 

chain networks. 

So we can figure out where stuff comes from. And there are ways 

to do that. You just have to set up monitoring, observation, and 

tracing mechanisms that the industry can comply with that will 

allow us to certify where this stuff comes, whether it is coming 

from a mine that does damage to civilian populations or not. 

This is all doable. And the more that it is studied, the more light 

that is shined on it, particularly by the U.N. panel of experts that 

released yet another report yesterday exposing in great detail how 

this supply chain works, we are learning more and more about how 

to do this, and the industry groups are, have shifted from a very 

unhelpful position to now trying to figure out how to comply and 

how to figure out how you would know what is in any particular 

electronics component that ends up in the United States. 

Mr. COOPER. Shift to people for a second. How do we know who 

the war criminals are? Who was, in fact, a member of the LRA or 

the Mai Mai; or who may have been a member but not committed 

an atrocity; who is not a member of anything but committed an 

atrocity. How do you know? 

Mr. DAGNE. I think with the LRA, FDLR, and CNDP we do have 

good knowledge of who the leaders are, who the commanders are. 

And I will be happy to provide those names and the command 

structure if you are interested. 

Mr. COOPER. But so many of the atrocities are committed by lowlevel troops, right? 

Mr. DAGNE. Of course, you have the rank and file who commit 

the atrocity, but who gives the order, who gives the command, is 

primarily responsible for it. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Yeah. I think it is really important to understand that these aren’t just, you know, troops that are completely 

out of control, running around raping, pillaging, and looting. There 

are very specific war strategies being pursued by the various 

armed groups in Congo, whether it is the government army, whether it is the foreign-armed groups, or whether it is some of the Congolese militias. There are particular interests being pursued. And 

when you give a green light to your rank and file that you now, 

as a strategy, as a tool of war, we are encouraging you to rape in 

the context of our attacks on particular civilian populations, that 

is a war crime or crime against humanity. 

And finally we are getting the ICC to investigate these linkages. 

We are seeing now indictments of particular individuals in Congo 
23 

where related to the recruitment of child soldiers forcibly and sexual violence as a war crime. And as the evidence accumulates, it 

is going to be harder and harder for people to argue that this is, 

you know, a violent, out-of-control situation. There are command 

and control issues that one hopes will be exposed by these indictments and that some of these people will actually end up spending 

the rest of their lives in jail for it. 

Mr. COOPER. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. No questions, just a quick comment. 

Mr. Dagne, you said earlier that you believe the Congolese have 

to come up with their own solutions. And I couldn’t agree more 

with you. I think the folks in Odessa, Texas, are better at solving 

the problems in Odessa, Texas, than anybody in D.C. It is heartening to hear someone as informed as you are about these issues 

make that statement, that we really do have to look to the Congolese themselves and then help them do it. 

In that vein, is there leadership in Congo that can provide the 

ideas that we can then help with as opposed to coming up with our 

own ideas and trying to put them over—implement them in the 

Congo? Are there folks there that we can work with? 

Mr. DAGNE. There is a government in Congo, was elected, President Joseph Kabila, and they have position groups, a functioning 

parliament, and we have been working with that government for 

the past decade. Is it ideal? Is it purely democratic? No. There is 

a lot more work that needs to be done. The point I am making is 

that in order for us to have an impact on the ground, we need to 

work with them, not come with a solution and say, This is what 

is best. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Exactly. Where is their list of solutions they have 

come up with themselves and said, Here are the things that we are 

going to make happen; can you help us with these, as opposed to 

us coming with that list and saying, Here’s some good ideas. What 

do you all think? 

I mean, is there that list and does it include this minerals management programming and everything else, or is there something 

else on that list that they themselves believe is the right way to 

go at this? 

Mr. DAGNE. Yeah. I can give you some examples on the security 

sector for the Congolese themselves have been asking in order even 

to control their own commanders. Not long ago, I think about 5, 6 

months ago, the president himself ordered the arrest of a senior 

general because of abuses that his units had carried out. Even on 

the conflict diamond issue, the minister of mining himself came 

and asked how we can help him. Use of satellites, for example, to 

identify bad areas and good areas. 

So they do come up and ask from time to time for help. And I 

think what is important, like when I said the region, they had 

come up, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and established a structure in 

order to ensure transparency on the conflict mineral issue. And 

that can be strengthened and coordinated. There have been other 

activities. For example, a European-based group that had been taking, you know, satellite photographs of some of these mines, and 

basically pushing that into a database identifying who controls it. 
24 

For us to be able to have an effective result, we need to know 

on the ground. We don’t have that kind of presence. You know, who 

is mining it? Who is the rebel commander there? Is it clean? Is it 

possible that—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Isn’t that something that the Congolese should be 

doing for themselves? 

Mr. DAGNE. Yes. Precisely. That is what I am talking about, the 

coordination with the Congolese. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Alright. Let me ask one other thing, and any of 

you can answer. The post-conflict diamond era in Sierra Leone and 

Liberia and Angola, the rank-and-file human beings there, is their 

quality of life any better today or have they just swapped one set 

of miseries for a new set of miseries? 

Mr. DAGNE. I think it is very difficult to say, you know, that 

their lives have improved. I can give you a number of examples 

from Angola. I was there. 

Mr. SMITH. If I may, not to interrupt you, but certainly it has got 

to help that there aren’t armed gangs running around shooting 

people. Who, I mean, that is not to say that their economy has 

taken off. But I find it hard to believe that if you—if a civil war 

is going on in your neighborhood, and then a civil war is not going 

on in your neighborhood, I just got to believe that is a better situation. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, maybe the civil war is still going on. 

Mr. DAGNE. The question that I thought was asked was if their 

livelihood has improved, not the security on the ground. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Right. Just one set of miseries for a new set of 

miseries. 

Mr. DAGNE. The day-to-day life of the individual once they are 

demobilized. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Day-to-day life. And I am sorry to keep arguing. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. SMITH. But the livelihood, certainly I get that. Well, I have 

made my statement. Go ahead. 

Mr. DAGNE. To answer your question, the day-to-day life, once 

they are demobilized, for a number of them, they are either integrated into the regular forces. But have they been given training 

—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. I am not talking about the demobilized. I am just 

talking about the rank-and-file citizen who is out there who is the 

victim of both sides of the civil war that was going on, that is not 

now going on, are their lives any better today, post-conflict diamond controls, than they were before? Or are they just as miserable now, they just got different miseries? 

Mr. DAGNE. No, no. I think when you look at the overall picture, 

definitely. 

Mr. CONAWAY. They are better off. 

Mr. DAGNE. For example, just Sudan. Five years ago, they signed 

an agreement. For me, when I look at the registration for primary 

school for girls, it had tripled. And that’s progress. When I look at, 

you know, people, you know, going to school and having access to 

medical care, that is progress which they didn’t have before. The 
25 

same thing can be said about the end of the war in Angola. You 

know, you see a lot of construction taking place, schools being built. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So their lives are better? 

Mr. DAGNE. Yes, their lives are better. 

Mr. CONAWAY. You said first that they weren’t, but now you are 

saying they are better. 

Mr. DAGNE. No, I thought you asked about—maybe I heard it 

wrong—I thought you asked about those who are demobilized once 

they are. 

Mr. CONAWAY. No. No. Just the overall folks who are the victims 

of whatever set of atrocities are going on, whether it is from machetes or AK–47s, are they better? What I am hearing you say is 

yes, life in Angola today is better than it was when diamonds were 

being mined by the negative groups and sold. 

Mr. DAGNE. Yeah. Definitely, in every case you end the war, the 

focus becomes on reconstruction and development. And that improves the lives of people. 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. There really is no comparison. I mean, three 

countries that had some of the highest rates of displacement in the 

world; people were living, moving from place to place escaping 

these terrible atrocities. And today, they are largely secure. Yeah, 

their economic growth rates aren’t off the charts, but it is an extraordinary difference to not be living in an internally displaced 

camp or a refugee camp to be able to go home and try to eke out 

a living. 

Okay, they are a long way from being a roaring economy, but to 

have the chance to rebuild your communities and your lives, that 

is what is happening in Liberia and Sierra Leone and Angola 

today. And those people, and just your point is reinforced. It is to 

let’s give those countries a chance and the people themselves to do 

it themselves. You take away that layer of conflict and people get 

on with their lives. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. I think I would echo the two former speakers. 

On the subject of Angola, which is another country in which MAG 

works, we have worked through a period of time immediately postconflict through a resurgence of the conflicts and to the current day 

as well. And, certainly, the point Mr. Prendergast made about the 

displaced peoples and supporting initially all of the work with 

UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] repatriation, et cetera, the ability now, I think the key word that is important here is the ability for communities and authorities at local regional and national levels to actually do some planning; to actually 

start looking at not just the stabilization of the communities, but 

planning reconstruction efforts, which we are seeing in the provinces in which we are working in Angola. 

It is a marked difference. And I would pose comparison to Sudan, 

DRC, et cetera; other countries which we are working where the 

threat and the regional threat and the insecurities such that those 

processes are a long way down the line. And that is a significant 

difference. And you genuinely see it in the face of people with 

whom you are working. You know that they are aware that they 

are not living under the imminent threat of the barrel of a gun as 

opposed to some of the other communities we have been mentioning in the likes of Eastern Congo. 
26 

Mr. SMITH. Thanks. I just have two final questions, both for Mr. 

Komorowski, but you can comment as well. The Department of Defense, AFRICOM, is not terribly involved in the Eastern Congo, is 

my understanding. But in your work in that area, what sort of relationship do you have with our DOD? And then the second question is about the Congolese army. We have talked around it a little 

bit. They are a significant part of the problem, both in terms of not 

being able to provide security in their country, but then also many 

members of the Congolese army actually do occasionally wind up 

preying on the population and becoming some of those rebel 

groups. 

Could you walk us through are we making progress on making 

the Congolese army better? At least, we do see the number of times 

they turn on the population making them better. And then, like I 

said at the outset, the question about you, the involvement of our 

Department of Defense in terms of helping with some of the issues 

we have talked about today. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Okay. So to take the two points separately. 

First of all, the engagement of my organization, Mines Advisory 

Group with the Department of Defense and its various agents and 

operators. We have a body here also in Washington so we coordinate very closely with the Office of WRA, Weapons Removal and 

Abatement, and so we are made aware when there are going to be 

DTRA [Defense Threat Reduction Agency] or AFRICOM missions 

and personnel deploying. 

So one of the key things we are providing is intelligence, is a 

clear understanding from our staff and our operations on the 

ground of the picture that is emerging there on a day-to-day basis. 

So that is one of the very practical ways in which we are engaged 

in working with the DTRA as well. We have, on occasion, actually 

been tasked to deliver operations as a follow-up to assessments 

that they have made. For example, in Burundi there was a DTRA 

assessment, and it became apparent that there were a number of 

MANPADS, numbering more than 300—— 

Mr. SMITH. I should say, by the way, Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency is DTRA, for the uninitiated. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Apologies. Yes, thank you. So on the basis of 

that Defense Threat Reduction Agency assessment, there was in 

excess of 300 MANPADS—man-portable air-defense systems—that 

were located. And as a result of MAG’s cooperation with that assessment, we were able to carry out the destruction with U.S. support as well. So that is one very practical example. But across the 

piece, we are essentially tied in and working with AFRICOM as 

and when there is a presence on the ground, mainly through briefings. I don’t know if that adequately answers—— 

Mr. SMITH. It does. That is enormously helpful. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. So to take the second question about working 

with the Congolese military, I think it is very important to make 

clear from the outset that MAG’s engagement with the military is 

very much, as I mentioned, within the province of weapons—— 

Mr. SMITH. If I may, I am not actually talking about your particular engagement, just as you engage with them, your assessment 

of their capabilities. And, as I said, two big problems: Number one, 
27 

they are not providing security; number two, in many instances, 

they are part of the problem, the individual members in the Congolese military. 

How would you assess those two statements that I have made, 

and is getting better? Is it getting worse? Where is that headed? 

And that would be for all three of you. 

Mr. KOMOROWSKI. Sure. I think one of the key problems that we 

deal with is the rotation or the movement, the change, the instability in terms of the structures with which we are working. So I 

mentioned in my submission that the building relationships of 

trust and an understanding of the role that we as an organization 

and other entities bring in is really key. 

When those are built and when those individuals are then moving on, and we see that frequently, it takes the process back. So 

building long-term reform with regard to the military capacity for 

justice building, et cetera, that is slightly out of our province. But 

I think that that turnover is unhelpful in that respect. 

I think the second point, as regards the Congolese military being 

part of the problem, again, I think it was mentioned earlier about 

at one point, Kinshasa was the perception of Congo. What we find 

as well is that the further away you get, the looser the chain of 

command. And I think that is one of the key issues as well in 

terms of how things are operating the further away that operations 

are from central command. 

It is not a particularly joined-up strategy or structure we see on 

the ground. And that is an issue in terms of how the tasking 

works. 

Mr. SMITH. Gentlemen, do you want to offer your thoughts? 

Mr. PRENDERGAST. Only one quick point, which is that for SSR 

to have a chance of working, it has got to be a multiyear, 

multidonor effort. And we need higher level engagement, because 

the kind of basic things, building blocks of army reform in the 

Congo, the kind of things you would want to do, reforming just how 

people are being paid and ensuring that they are paid; constructing 

barracks. When I used to work for an International Crisis Group, 

we went around and did a survey of all these barracks and talked 

to the soldiers and their families and stuff and it was worse than 

a refugee camp. You know, these guys. And then we are, like, wondering why so much looting goes on in the vicinity of these camps 

you know, and its direct. Their commanding officers are just pillaging these guys. They are taking everything that comes down the 

chain. 

So there is basic reforms of how people are paid and how they 

are trained and how they are then held accountable as soldiers for 

their activities. 

Mr. SMITH. Is it getting any better or, in recent years or is it just 

about where it’s at? OK. Let the record reflect he shook his head 

no. 

Mr. Dagne. 

Mr. DAGNE. I don’t think it has improved. I think it has been terrible over the past 5 years. Even, I think, with the ongoing security 

sector reform, I don’t expect improvement to come any time soon 

as long as those who are carrying these, you know, attacks are not 
28 

held accountable. Accountability is just as important, and we 

haven’t seen much of that. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Conaway? 

Well, thank you. That was very, very informative. I really appreciate the testimony from all three of you, and we will continue to 

work on this issue and in that area, and look forward to working 

with you. Thank you. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

NOVEMBER 30, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

NOVEMBER 30, 2010 

(33) 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Æ