Uganda, Rwanda deny U.N. accusations of backing DRC rebels

Uganda and Rwanda angrily rejected accusations of backing rebels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after a United Nations report tying them to the insurgents was leaked to reporters this week.

The confidential U.N. report, leaked to Reuters on Tuesday, reportedly asserted that the Rwandan defense minister was commanding the rebellion and that Rwanda and Uganda have funneled weapons and troops to the rebels.

Rwandan foreign minister Louise Mushikiwabo rejected the accusations and claimed the expert panel had been “hijacked” by the political biases of its coordinator, the Rwanda News Agency reported. Rwandan officials have accused the coordinator of being an apologist for the forces behind its genocide.

Uganda also denied the accusations.

"It's hogwash, it's a mere rumor that's being taken as a report,” Ugandan military spokesman Felix Kulaigye told Radio France Internationale.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has been roiled by the rebellion, which includes soldiers who mutinied with a Congolese army general wanted by the International Criminal Court. The soldiers had been brought into the army as part of an earlier peace deal.

Suspicions that other countries are involved in the conflict have simmered since violence erupted this year. Human Rights Watch also has accused Rwanda of aiding the rebels, saying officials had armed and backed the mutiny. Western countries cut their aid to Rwanda this year over the allegations.

Despite the furor over the allegations, Rwanda won a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council on Thursday. Temporary members of the group do not have the power to veto action, as do permanent members France, China, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia, but sitting on the powerful body is still a coveted position.

ALSO:

Imprisoned lawyer in Iran goes on hunger strike

Activists: Airstrike on Syrian city kills at least 30 civilians

Striking Egyptian doctors begin nationwide resignation campaign

-- Emily Alpert in Los Angeles

Photo: Henry Okello Oryem, the Ugandan minister for foreign affairs, speaks to members of the media in Kampala on Wednesday. Credit: Phil Moore / Agence France-Presse / Getty Images

New regulations seek to expose Congo conflict minerals

New U.S. rules will soon require publicly traded companies that use minerals such as tin, tungsten and gold to disclose whether the minerals they buy to make cellphones, laptops and other goods may have helped bankroll conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or neighboring countries.

But after years of debate, concerns remain about the recent regulations, which spell out what companies will have to include in reports showing that they've examined where their minerals come from. Those concerns come from both the activists who pushed for the law and the businesses that have questioned it.

The regulations, adopted last month by the Securities and Exchange Commission and effective in November, come more than two years after Congress passed the law behind them, part of the larger Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. The law requires publicly traded companies to say whether they use minerals from the troubled region and, if so, to describe how they assess whether their products are "DRC Conflict Free."

Activists focused on the conflict in eastern Congo argued that by "naming and shaming" companies that buy minerals that profit armed groups, the law would nudge corporations to stop.

Government troops and rebels continue to battle for control in an enduring conflict that has led to slayings and mass rape. Margot Wallstrom, who served as the United Nations special representative on sexual violence in conflict, once called the area "the rape capital of the world," lamenting that its natural riches, sold to make electronics abroad, have helped fuel the violence.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the goal of stopping the violence was laudable but questioned how costly and onerous the rules would be for businesses. Some researchers normally sympathetic to the activists were unconvinced that the rules would help quell the conflict.

"You're not going to get militias to stop fighting because you cut off one source of revenue," said Laura Seay, assistant professor of political science at Morehouse College. "We need to stop pretending that will curb the violence. It won't."

Seay called the final version of the rules "a reasonable compromise" on a flawed law. "And as with most compromises, nobody is completely happy with it," she said.

Global Witness, one of the watchdog groups that pushed for the law, said the SEC had "caved in to industry pressure." After waiting years for the regulations, some activists were aggravated that for two to four years, companies would be allowed to say they couldn't determine where their minerals came from.