Vedastus Bugabo
Africa-Press – Rwanda. It is unfortunate to note that the UN mapping report is often used erroneously and superficially to dramatically amplify the death toll in DR Congo and launch unjustified accusations against individuals whom the report has never identified as accountable. Definitely, the mapping report falls short as a credible reference by any standard, as it fundamentally failed in its official purpose to establish the truth and deliver justice to the victims. However, its partisan political exploitation, particularly by pointing to ‘false’ culprits associated with ‘false’ crimes, greatly undermines efforts to promote peace and reconciliation. In this article, we will seek to clarify what the mapping report actually indicated regarding the death toll and the origins of the figure of ‘six million’ widely cited by Congolese and some Europeans self-proclaimed experts on Africa. Our aim is to provide a more accurate understanding of this complex issue.
Inventory of human rights and humanitarian law violations
The “United Nations Mapping Report on the most serious human rights and international humanitarian law violations committed between March 1993 and June 2003 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” hereinafter referred to as the “mapping report,” lists 617 incidents distributed across the various periods of the Congolese conflict as follows:
March 1993 – June 1996: 40 incidents (following failures in the democratization process and regional crises)
July 1996 – July 1998: 238 incidents (during the first Congo war and the AFDL regime)
August 1998 – January 2001: 200 incidents (during the second Congo war, involving eight national armies and 21 irregular armed groups)
January 2001 – June 2003: 139 incidents (occurring during the transition period, notably the conflict between the Lendu and the Hema in Ituri, as well as clashes between the Congolese Armed Forces (FAC) and Mai-Mai forces in Katanga)
It is possible to examine the number of deaths per incident over the five-year period of the conflict (1996-2001), excluding the violence by public authorities which, in fact, is not counted or even recognized by Congolese, particularly the government. Thus, based on a total of claimed 6 million deaths, one would find 1.2 million deaths per year over the mentioned period, which is about 3,300 deaths per day. How have the Congolese not seen anything or, worse, not said anything for 10 years after the second Congo war (2001), until the release of the mapping report in 2010? This is a topic for debate by the Congolese.
The number of deaths recorded by the mapping report
To obtain the total number of deaths, one must add up all the figures by region and by period, as presented in the mapping report. However, it has not been necessary to repeat this exercise, as it was already done by the World Peace Foundation, established in 1910 and affiliated with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts [Democratic Republic of Congo 1998 – 2003, World Peace Foundation, September 18, 2015]. Thus, it was noted that between 1993 and 2003, the mapping report documented a total of 39,248 violent deaths and forced disappearances without release or return.
This is, of course, far from the 6 million that are often falsely attributed to the mapping report, or 10 million from “researcher” Charles Onana, who cites only speeches from President Félix Tshisekedi as his sole unerring reference. Another reference of the World Peace Foundation is the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) project, which has tracked violent events and deaths in the DRC since 1997. Their database indicates that ACLED recorded a total of 32,872 civilian deaths for the years 1997-2003.
Six million deaths in DR Congo, alleged by Congolese people and government
The United Nations mapping report does not provide annual totals, but rather groups deaths according to different phases of the conflict. As noted above, the World Peace Foundation (WPF) has compiled data by periods, ranging from March 1993 to June 1996 (1,231 killed); from July 1996 to July 1998 (30,178 killed); from August 1998 to January 2001 (8,239 killed); and from January 2001 to June 2003 (6,861 killed), totaling 39,248 deaths. However, the WPF took the highest value when there were multiple figures included in the report, resulting in a higher total of 46,509 deaths, instead of the 39,248 deaths reported in the mapping report. So, where did the 6 million deaths often mentioned by all Congolese come from, before the number was raised to 10 million according to President Tshisekedi, and widely circulating today?
The highest figures of civilian deaths, including all excess mortality and not just murders, are reported by the International Rescue Committee (IRC), which estimated 5.4 million deaths between August 1998 and April 2007 (rounded later to 6 million by those who wished to do so) and falsely attributed to the mapping report. Among these, 2.1 million excess deaths were recorded for the post-war period, from January 2003 to April 2007, while the same study estimated the number of deaths at 3.3 million for the period 1998-2002 (Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo, an ongoing crisis, IRC, 2008). The study specifies that out of the 5.4 million deaths, approximately 4.6 million occurred in the unstable provinces of Eastern Congo, representing just over 85% of the total deaths. This number becomes 5.1 million when related to the 6 million stated by the Congolese. Let us recall that excess mortality refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis, beyond what we would have normally expected to see during the reference period.
The IRC used a methodology to estimate the crude death rate (CDR) by interviewing respondents about the size and composition of their household, as well as deaths that occurred in the household during a given period. This estimated CDR was compared to the average CDR for sub-Saharan Africa, and the difference was considered to represent deaths attributable to the conflict. The IRC considers that this figure encompasses excess mortality due to the war, thus reflecting the humanitarian impact of the conflict rather than direct violence. According to the organization, only 0.4% of all deaths could be attributed to violence, which amounts to 21,600 deaths. 0.4% of 2.1 million (the number of deaths reported for the post conflict period 2003-2007) is 8,400 deaths. Therefore, based on this IRC study, which is the only reference for the 6 million deaths found in the literature, the number of deaths due to direct violence between 1998 and 2002 is estimated at 13,200.
It should be noted that there are opinions suggesting that the hidden objective of IRC was to raise funds for its advocacy for peace, as highlighted by Roland Pourtier in a 2018 study (the DRC facing the demographic challenge, Ifri notes, 2018). According to this study, the figures presented by the IRC seemed excessive and contradictory to demographic projections. This questioning prompted researchers from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver to re-examine the issue by revising the available demographic data to estimate mortality related to the Congolese war.
Their study concluded that the number of deaths occurring between 2001 and 2007 was 900,000, which is significantly lower than the IRC’s estimate of 2.8 million for the same period (Human Security Report, 2009-2010, Vancouver, Simon Fraser University, 2011). For its part, MSF decided to end its collaboration with the IRC, arguing that excess mortality between 1998 and 2003 could not exceed one million people (Tales and Legends of African Wars. Controversies and Politics Surrounding Violent Mortality, Foreign Policy, No. 3, Ifri, September 2010).
Other studies have fueled uncertainty and controversy around the number of deaths caused by the war, primarily in eastern Congo, Kivu, and Ituri. One of these studies goes so far as to estimate this number at 200,000 [A. Lambert and L. Lohlé-Tart, “Excess mortality in Congo (DRC) during the turmoil of 1998-2004: A Scientifically Based Estimate of Excess Deaths from Demographic Methods,” Association for the Development of Applied Research in Social Sciences, October 2008].
Would the North and South Kivu be completely depopulated?
Having crossed the thresholds of 4, then 5, then 6 million, and now 10 million victims, this figure has quickly been propagated by media and individuals who thrive on sensationalism without caring for truth or even plausibility. Losing 5 or 6 million people in a few years is indeed incompatible with a Congolese population growth of about 3% per year. Thus, with a loss of over 5 million lives, one can legitimately wonder whether the provinces of North and South Kivu are still inhabited. We will do the calculations to clarify this question.
Considering that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has not conducted a population census since the scientific population census of 1984, we can use this data to estimate the population at different periods. The available data on the website Donneesmondiales.com provides the population trend in the DRC since 1960, as well as information on demographic growth rates. By calculating the average over the period from 1984 (the date of the last census) to 2001 (the cessation of hostilities), we obtain a demographic growth rate of 3.02%. According to the scientific population census of 1984 conducted by the National Institute of Statistics, the population of North Kivu was 2,434,275 inhabitants, and that of South Kivu was 2,107,988 inhabitants at that time [Scientific Population Census of 1984, National Institute of Statistics, Final Totals, July 1984]. What should the population be in 2001, without the wars causing excess deaths?
By applying the Malthusian demographic modeling to the 1984 data mentioned above, the population of North Kivu in 2001 would be approximately 4,036,788 people, considering a constant (average) growth rate of 3.02% over this period. As for the population of South Kivu, which was 2,107,988 in July 1984, using the same Malthusian formula, it would be 3,495,702 in 2001. Thus, the total population of both Kivus would be 7,532,490 inhabitants in 2001. Consequently, out of a total of 7,532,490 inhabitants, the two Kivus would have lost more than 5.1 million lives, according to the Congolese estimates. This would imply that only a little over 2 million inhabitants would be sharing 130,200 km2 after the war, without anyone worrying or just noticing, until the release of the mapping report. This should raise some questions for any reasonable Congolese regarding the likelihood of such estimates.
Was a genocide committed in DR Congo between 1991 and 2001?
Once again, I invite you to dissect the mapping report in search of a genocide that may have been committed in DR Congo between 1991 and 2001. Indeed, the United Nations mapping report, published in 2010, documented a series of atrocities, including mass killings, rapes, and other forms of serious violence. These acts, according to the report, could be classified as crimes against humanity and war crimes. It attributed them to all the warring parties, without any exception. However, the report did not formally state anywhere that a genocide occurred during this period. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that it is not the number of deaths that qualifies acts as genocide. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is the primary international instrument governing the classification of genocide, does not specify a minimum numerical threshold of victims for an act to be considered genocide. Thus, even a relatively small number of victims can be regarded as genocide if the acts committed meet the genocidal intent defined by international law. Genocide is rather defined by the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Therefore, regardless of the crimes committed, no matter how atrocious, by their severity or scale, the final classification of these acts as “genocide” would depend on a thorough judicial investigation aimed at proving the specific intent to destroy a group as such. This is what it is and what the mapping report tells us. Assuming this much quoted report is really credible for the Congolese, what allows the Congolese community, including prominent figures from different backgrounds, to accuse only some belligerents and not others? Why have the Congolese forces mentioned in the report never been held accountable for anything and brought to justice within DR Congo itself? While everyone is entitled to their opinions, it is important to recognize that the mapping report does not corroborate any of the most popular allegations surrounding the issue. Relying on this report as evidence can be misleading, as it fails to support many claims that have been widely circulated. Therefore, it is essential to critically evaluate the sources and evidence being referenced when discussing such significant matters.
Source: The New Times
For More News And Analysis About Rwanda Follow Africa-Press
