Comment: Countering the FDLR
Political dialogue increasingly seems the only way of resolving the problem of Rwandan militias in eastern Congo.
Comment: Countering the FDLR
Political dialogue increasingly seems the only way of resolving the problem of Rwandan militias in eastern Congo.
A United Nations Security Council resolution demanding the disarmament of all Rwandan armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the latest in a long line of declarations, accords and agreements intended to bring peace to the troubled eastern region.
Resolution 1804 follows on from a November 2007 deal signed in Nairobi between the DRC and Rwanda in which both countries promised to put an end to the presence of foreign armed groups in eastern Congo, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, the FDLR.
Several thousand FDLR remain in Congo – many of whom fled Rwanda following the 1994 genocide. These Rwandan militia are accused of having participated in the killings and they continue to commit serious crimes in the east of the DRC. Not surprisingly, their presence along with other illegal Rwandan armed groups like the Rastas and the ex-FAR/Interahamwe have had a destabilising influence over security in the east of the Congo since they arrived.
The adoption of the March 13 resolution shows that the Security Council also agrees that these forces constitute a real danger and a threat to peace and stability, not only in DRC but also the entire Great Lakes region.
In addition to laying down arms, the resolution calls on the FDLR and other Rwandan fighters to “ immediately stop recruiting and using children, release all children associated with them and halt gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse”, stressing that those responsible for these crimes must be brought to justice.
But why does resolution 1804 not also concern Laurent Nkunda’s troops? This is regrettable since the FDLR issue must also be addressed in the context of the Goma peace process that was supposed to lead to the disarmament of all armed groups operating in the DRC. It is illogical to separate these two processes. This resolution 1804 must also concern Congolese armed groups operating in the east, including Nkunda’s men.
The Security Council says it is willing to take targeted sanctions against the FDLR’s leaders, particularly against those who continue to block the disarmament and demobilisation of their troops. Such sanctions concern the freezing of assets and a travel ban, but these sanctions will obviously not affect the harming capacity of the armed groups.
For their part, the FDLR insist they are not the cause of the continuing insecurity in the region and say they are willing to go back to Rwanda.
But they’ve said this before.
In a declaration made in Rome in March 2005, the FDLR said they would voluntarily disarm and to go back to Rwanda. FDLR civilian and military leaders announced in a public statement that they intended to cease the armed conflict, condemn the 1994 genocide and lay down their arms.
They also committed themselves to enter the disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, reinstallation and reintegration programme that would have seen them join the Rwandan army or go back to civilian life.
Congo was supposed to help in the disarmament process with the assistance of the United Nations Mission in Congo, MONUC.
In return, the FDLR asked the Rwandan government to give them an active role in political life. They also asked the Congolese government to establish a follow-up committee with which they would discuss the modalities of their disarmament and repatriation. This committee was never established and the Rome declaration did not lead to the disarmament or the return of the FDLR.
Neither did a Security Council resolution of November 8, 2001 suggesting that MONUC and the Congolese army disarm the foreign combatants. So resolution 1804 is not the first of its kind.
With forced disarmament having proved unsuccessful and the time well and truly gone to put an end to the presence of the FDLR and other Rwandan armed groups in the DRC, dialogue is the answer.
And the FDLR appear willing to talk. They won’t go back home under the current conditions and are requesting direct talks with the Rwandan government under the patronage of the international community.
One problem here is whether Rwanda wants them back. That’s where the biggest difficulty lies. But it should not constitute a problem for Congo. It rests with the international community to find a political solution to the FDLR situation, notably through political dialogue between the group and the Rwandan government.
Some say that the MONUC peacekeepers should convert into an offensive operation – to force the hand of the Rwandan armed groups operating in the Congo. But the powerlessness of MONUC and the disorganisation of the Congolese army are factors that will probably lead to the failure of any attempt of forced disarmament.
There is no military solution to the FDLR problem. As an illustration, the Rwandan armed forces failed to get rid of the FDLR during six years of military presence in the North and South Kivu provinces. That failure was down to their military strategy and also because it was hard to distinguish the FDLR from the displaced Rwandan civilian population.
If the FDLR refuse to voluntarily disarm, there is a risk of another war in the region with the return of the Rwandan army to Congolese territory.
A political solution should be given top priority in order to avoid renewed confrontations or fights.
The involvement of the Security Council in the search for peace in the Great Lakes region, notably in the east of the Congo, is welcome but Congo needs all of the international community including the European Union.
Foreign combatants operating in Congo must be identified, MONUC’s capacities must be improved and their mandate reinforced to allow them to better protect the civilian population. We must also think about the fate of the FDLR after their disarmament and repatriation and work for the end of fighting in the east.
Congo must not continuously suffer from the presence of these Rwandan armed groups on its territory.
Eugène Bakama Bope is the president of the Friends of the Law in the Congo.
Resolution 1804 follows on from a November 2007 deal signed in Nairobi between the DRC and Rwanda in which both countries promised to put an end to the presence of foreign armed groups in eastern Congo, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, the FDLR.
Several thousand FDLR remain in Congo – many of whom fled Rwanda following the 1994 genocide. These Rwandan militia are accused of having participated in the killings and they continue to commit serious crimes in the east of the DRC. Not surprisingly, their presence along with other illegal Rwandan armed groups like the Rastas and the ex-FAR/Interahamwe have had a destabilising influence over security in the east of the Congo since they arrived.
The adoption of the March 13 resolution shows that the Security Council also agrees that these forces constitute a real danger and a threat to peace and stability, not only in DRC but also the entire Great Lakes region.
In addition to laying down arms, the resolution calls on the FDLR and other Rwandan fighters to “ immediately stop recruiting and using children, release all children associated with them and halt gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse”, stressing that those responsible for these crimes must be brought to justice.
But why does resolution 1804 not also concern Laurent Nkunda’s troops? This is regrettable since the FDLR issue must also be addressed in the context of the Goma peace process that was supposed to lead to the disarmament of all armed groups operating in the DRC. It is illogical to separate these two processes. This resolution 1804 must also concern Congolese armed groups operating in the east, including Nkunda’s men.
The Security Council says it is willing to take targeted sanctions against the FDLR’s leaders, particularly against those who continue to block the disarmament and demobilisation of their troops. Such sanctions concern the freezing of assets and a travel ban, but these sanctions will obviously not affect the harming capacity of the armed groups.
For their part, the FDLR insist they are not the cause of the continuing insecurity in the region and say they are willing to go back to Rwanda.
But they’ve said this before.
In a declaration made in Rome in March 2005, the FDLR said they would voluntarily disarm and to go back to Rwanda. FDLR civilian and military leaders announced in a public statement that they intended to cease the armed conflict, condemn the 1994 genocide and lay down their arms.
They also committed themselves to enter the disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, reinstallation and reintegration programme that would have seen them join the Rwandan army or go back to civilian life.
Congo was supposed to help in the disarmament process with the assistance of the United Nations Mission in Congo, MONUC.
In return, the FDLR asked the Rwandan government to give them an active role in political life. They also asked the Congolese government to establish a follow-up committee with which they would discuss the modalities of their disarmament and repatriation. This committee was never established and the Rome declaration did not lead to the disarmament or the return of the FDLR.
Neither did a Security Council resolution of November 8, 2001 suggesting that MONUC and the Congolese army disarm the foreign combatants. So resolution 1804 is not the first of its kind.
With forced disarmament having proved unsuccessful and the time well and truly gone to put an end to the presence of the FDLR and other Rwandan armed groups in the DRC, dialogue is the answer.
And the FDLR appear willing to talk. They won’t go back home under the current conditions and are requesting direct talks with the Rwandan government under the patronage of the international community.
One problem here is whether Rwanda wants them back. That’s where the biggest difficulty lies. But it should not constitute a problem for Congo. It rests with the international community to find a political solution to the FDLR situation, notably through political dialogue between the group and the Rwandan government.
Some say that the MONUC peacekeepers should convert into an offensive operation – to force the hand of the Rwandan armed groups operating in the Congo. But the powerlessness of MONUC and the disorganisation of the Congolese army are factors that will probably lead to the failure of any attempt of forced disarmament.
There is no military solution to the FDLR problem. As an illustration, the Rwandan armed forces failed to get rid of the FDLR during six years of military presence in the North and South Kivu provinces. That failure was down to their military strategy and also because it was hard to distinguish the FDLR from the displaced Rwandan civilian population.
If the FDLR refuse to voluntarily disarm, there is a risk of another war in the region with the return of the Rwandan army to Congolese territory.
A political solution should be given top priority in order to avoid renewed confrontations or fights.
The involvement of the Security Council in the search for peace in the Great Lakes region, notably in the east of the Congo, is welcome but Congo needs all of the international community including the European Union.
Foreign combatants operating in Congo must be identified, MONUC’s capacities must be improved and their mandate reinforced to allow them to better protect the civilian population. We must also think about the fate of the FDLR after their disarmament and repatriation and work for the end of fighting in the east.
Congo must not continuously suffer from the presence of these Rwandan armed groups on its territory.
Eugène Bakama Bope is the president of the Friends of the Law in the Congo.
