Good People, Congo problem should be resolved urgently. Their Human Rights need to be valued and honored. They too as human beings, have a right to live peacefully and with dignity. Their livelihood and survival must be respected and honored by all people of the world. It is about time that leaders of the world must agree and join together under mutual agreement to help Congo people to resolve their long lasting conflicts and that peace be a common denominator enjoyed by all sharing common interest and values. It will be unfair to simply watch Congo people destroyed by M23, a Rebel engineered by Rwanda's leader Kagame supported by Museveni. It is too painful to simply just sit and watch......... It is time the Congo people get the help that need to live a more dignified and honorable livelihood. Judy Miriga Diaspora Spokesperson Executive Director Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc., and Special Coordinator Representative for Pan Africa in Maryland, Virginia and DC --- On Mon, 3/25/13, Juma Mzuri <jumamzuri@gmail.com> wrote: From: Juma Mzuri <jumamzuri@gmail.com> Subject: [wanabidii] How DR Congo conflict could ignite regional war To: "Wanabidii" <wanabidii@googlegroups.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2013, 4:53 PM BY ANDREW M. MWENDA The likely implications of Ntaganda's flight
On Monday March 18, former leader of the Congolese rebel movement CNDP, Gen. Bosco Ntaganda, appeared unexpectedly at the United States embassy in Kigali to hand himself over to the Americans. He was smarting from a military defeat at the hands his erstwhile ally and now rival, Sultan Makenga, who heads the M23 rebel movement in eastern DRC.
After walking through Virunga National Park that covers the border areas of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, he drove to Kigali most likely from Ruhengeri unnoticed by Rwanda's security forces. Rwandan officials were taken by surprised when they heard from the Americans about Ntaganda's appearance in their capital seeking extradition to The Hague where he is wanted for war crimes.
The previous day, March 17, the ramp of Ntaganda's defeated army had entered Rwanda seeking refugee alongside their political leader Jean Marie Runiga. Rwanda placed Runiga under house arrest as it prepared to hand over the 700 combatants with him over to the UN as refugees.
The recent flare-up in the fighting in Congo has taken the international community by surprise as well. For more than a year, the international community bought tall tales by the UN "panel of experts" that there was no rebellion in Congo but a Rwandan invasion of the country. The M23 was seen as a Rwanda proxy and American and European journalists wrote stories of how its troops were actually from the Rwandan army. Thus, when M23 broke into rival factions and began a ferocious internal fight, the international media went speechless. They could not reasonably claim that this was a fight among different battalions of the Rwandan army.
Regional confusion
The internal fighting within M23 has also thrown the regional efforts to end that conflict in confusion. At the beginning of March, Presidents Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola and Jacob Zuma of South Africa had a meeting in Luanda, Angola. During the meeting, Zuma and Kabila argued that SADC should move its forces to fight the M23 rebels. Zuma, sources say, is convinced that M23 is the disguised hand of Rwanda. But Dos Santos objected saying that he knows the problem of DRC is more than Rwanda and M23. It has a lot to do with internal problems in Congo.
"Comrades," Dos Santos reportedly told his colleagues, "even us [Angola] have many problems emanating from DRC. Many guns are being trafficked from DRC into our country. Criminals and potential terrorists are crossing as well. So it would be wrong to say that the M23 problem is caused by Rwanda. Kigali may have contributed to it but it is not the source of the problem. The root cause is the inability of Kinshasa to govern most of its territory."
Dos Santos advised that rather than send forces to fight rebels inside DRC, SADC should help Kinshasa find a negotiated settlement with them – "in order to achieve internal social integration." He said Luanda has been deeply involved in the problems of Congo for nearly 40 years and most of this time as a victim. This time, he added, Angola will not contribute troops to fight Kinshasa's wars – a solution he said cannot work.
"But if you comrades feel strongly that we intervene militarily we must," he added perhaps sensing unease on their faces, "then in the spirit of SADC Angola will contribute money but not troops to that effort. And I would advise that all of us help our young brother here find a political, not a military solution."
Sources close to Luanda say that Dos Santos held his position firmly even in the face of pressure from Zuma as Kabila watched in silent wonderment. Finally, and in spite of his advice, SADC went ahead to recommend deployment of troops inside DRC to fight "wrong elements" (read M23). The countries to contribute to this force are South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique. This is a potentially explosive decision.
Presidents Zuma and Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, informed sources say, do not see eye-to eye with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda on DRC. Kikwete's vision is reportedly blurred by internal failures of his government. Under him, Tanzania has seen unprecedented corruption and failure to deliver basic services to the people. The situation is not helped when he is constantly reminded of Kagame's success in the little neighbor, Rwanda.
Zuma and Kagame's relations meanwhile are not good either. First, the South African president has been under the influence of Bill Masetera, a former intelligence chief under Thabo Mbeki and close friend and ally of Rwandan dissident generals Kayumba Nyamwasa and Patrick Karegyeya. To make matters worse, in a meeting of AU in Addis Ababa in 2011, Kagame is said to have directly interrupted Zuma's speech in defense of then Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi by saying he had seen "money bags been moving around" to pay off various heads of state to support Gadaffi. Zuma did not take this accusation lightly and it added insult to injury.
It is in this context that two of the three countries sending troops to DRC have an axe to grind with the country accused of sponsoring a rebellion. Regional military experts say that the South African army may be good in equipment and training but is weak in experience. This is even more pronounced when it comes to fighting a counter insurgency in a country that is densely forested, with a bad terrain, and speaking a language alien to the South Africans. The Tanzanian army, on the other hand, while well trained but not-so-well equipped has not seen action in 30 years. Secondly, the TPDF has never fought a counter insurgency.
"The South Africans and Tanzanians are preparing to deploy in DRC with a lot of enthusiasm and confidence of success against M23," a well placed regional expert on regional security told The Independent on condition of anonymity, "But they are underestimating the capabilities of M23. These people have been fighting in the jungles of eastern DRC for over 18 years and know every nook and cranny of their area. They have also accumulated considerable experience. So, mark my words: They are not going to be a walkover as the South Africans and Tanzanians would like the think."
Therefore, experts say that the likelihood that the Tanzanians and South Africans may get badly clobbered by M23 is very high. And if this happens: then what?
"It is very possible the Tanzanians and South Africans will not believe that they have been beaten by M23," the expert told The Independent, "They are likely to suspect it is Rwanda fighting them. And if this is the case, and depending on the level of humiliation that may be inflicted on them, they, especially Tanzania, may decide to attack Rwanda in retaliation. Then you will have an international war – the unexpected outcome of an ill-thought out intervention in Congo."
Internal M23 fight
Or may be not. For the last two weeks as the armies of Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania trained and prepared to deploy in DRC, M23 began a ferocious internal war against itself. The forces of Makenga began pitched battles with the forces commanded by Ntaganda.
In the murky jungles of rebel infested DRC, it should not surprise anyone that Ntaganda is resurfacing at this point. Informed sources say, Runiga, has in fact been an Ntaganda stooge all along.
M23 has for long had factions. Although M23 officially claimed that they had nothing to do with Ntaganda, he left behind a wing, also known as the Kimbelembele that paid allegiance to him led General Baudouin Ngaruye. These were always in constant but invisible friction with the the pro-Nkunda wing, the Kifuafua led by Sultani Makenga.
Sources on the ground say the intra-M23 battles have been ferocious, brutal and bloody – worse in their sheer mercilessness compared to anything Congolese have seen in battles against Kinshasa – a family feud turned nasty.
Last week, Ntaganda matched his forces from Runyoni and attacked Makenga's camp at Cyanzu. He also attacked Makenga's troops in Rumangabo where the main M23 armories are. This forced Makenga to call upon two of his forward battalions north of Goma in the area of Kirimanyoka to come and reinforce Rumangabo. He also called his forces based around Rucuru to come reinforce Cyanzu. This withdraw by these battalions from these towns led the FDLR, the forces of the former Rwandan army that committed genocide in 1994, to occupy all the areas near Rucuru and Rugari. The FDLR in the presence of MUNSCO later handed over Rucuru and Kiwanja to the Congolese army.
However, having repelled the Ntaganda attack, Makenga now moved his forces and encircled Rucuru until he forced them to withdraw before he could annihilate them. The Congolese obliged – showing that even when M23 is fighting itself, the Congolese army is unable to take advantage of the situation and make counter offensives that can stand.
The new developments have thrown the international community, its activist arm led by human rights organizations, and its propaganda arm led by the international press, into disarray. For a long time, the international community refused to recognise M23 as a domestic Congolese problem with grievances against Kinshasa. Instead, they insisted M23 was actually the Rwandan army itself. Tall tales of large movements of troops crossing the border from Rwanda into DRC were relayed to the world. Added to this were allegations that large quantities of arms and ammunition were being transported from Kigali to Goma to support the operation.
Shock and shame
A report by a UN "panel of experts" that many informed people saw as little more than a shoddy and poorly written work of fiction was given Biblical status.
The belief that M23 was the hidden work of Kigali was so widespread that obvious facts were ignored. Even when Kabila fired his chief of staff for selling arms to the rebels, the human rights community and its propaganda arm, the international press, refused to report the matter as it would have undermined the credibility of their claim that it was the Rwandan army fighting in DRC and supplying itself the weapons. So powerful was the desire to find Rwanda guilty that nearly every international donor began cutting aid to Rwanda.
The fighting among the different factions of the M23 has taken the entire UN system, its human rights allies and the international press by shock and surprise. Without Rwanda to play the role of villain, the triumvirate is now confused. With tens of thousands getting displaced, thousands of refugees flocking into Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, with hundreds dead anddying, there is only a murmur in the international press about the evolving humanitarian crisis in eastern DRC. The problem is that the international community has no one to blame this time.
Informed sources say the current feud within the ranks of M23 is both unfortunate and sad given that Tutsi citizens of DRC face an existential threat from Kinshasa. The leaders of Congo have been openly calling upon different communities in the eastern region to exterminate all Tutsi in that region. Therefore, M23 emerged with strong and legitimate grievances, which the international community through the UN sought to suppress by shifting the blame from Kinshasa to Kigali.
However, from the beginning, this newspaper reported that Kigali was anxious and uncomfortable with M23. Although it shared their legitimate fears, strategists in Kigali felt that Congolese Tutsi are too undisciplined to work with. Sources close to Kagame have always said the president thinks the leadership of Kinshasa and the rebels are all ideologically bankrupt. He has also said this in an open address to the Rwandan parliament. Given his strong views on this matter, it was unlikely that Kagame was the man to throw in his lot with M23.
Besides, Rwanda is aware that although it can influence M23, it does not have control over it. For example, one of the factors behind the current infighting in the rebel group is clan politics and rivalries. Ntaganda is from the Bagogwe clan alongside Baudouin Ngaruye. Meanwhile Makenga is also from the same Bagogwe clan but grew up in Rucuru among Banyejomba clan of former CNDP leader, Laurent Nkunda. Ntaganda has always seen himself as a rival to Nkunda and enjoys large support among the Bagogwe. This meant that Makenga could never rival him for support in the clan which made him court the Banyejomba. Ntaganda has since used his identity to wrestle control from Makenga.
Signs of that M23 would have a fight have always been there. Makenga and Ntaganda have never been friends. When Makenga began M23, he made it clear he had no intention to protect Ntaganda from the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In fact, at the time M23 was formed, Ntaganda who had moved through the Virunga Park was close to Makenga forces. They ignored him. Knowledgeable sources say that among Makenga's troops were many officers and soldiers who had previously been under Ntaganda's command and therefore loyal to him. Makenga needed time to consolidate his position.
However, the turning point in M23 came when Runiga became president of the movement. His first action was to negotiate an alliance with Ntaganda. Sources say that Runiga, who is not a Congolese Rwandese but a Mushi, saw that Ntaganda had a following among the M23 troops and had a lot of money and is backed by a strong clan. Makenga, on the other hand, had made Runiga president because as a Mushi and a bishop, he had the stature and following that would expand the political base and appeal of M23 among other Congolese communities. He is well spoken, educated and therefore presentable.
However, when M23 took Goma, the region asked him to leave. In fact Museveni invited Makenga to Kampala where he formally told him that if he needs help from the regional leaders to present his grievances, he needs to withdraw from Goma. Makenga agreed. However, Runiga did not want to leave Goma because he thought it was giving them great political leverage. He called a press conference and put forth a set of political conditions before they could withdraw. He had not consulted Makenga who interpreted it as the hidden voice of Ntaganda.
This was the first and major disagreement between Runiga and Makenga. Runiga was now challenging Makenga claiming he was the supreme political leader. He also promoted Col. Baudoin Ngaruye (now in a refugee camp in Giseyi) to Brigadier General – the same rank as Makenga. Nyaruye is very close to Ntaganda. Makenga saw this as Ntaganda taking over M23.
When Makenga returned from Kampala, he wanted to arrest Runiga. However, after a lot of political negotiations he abandoned the idea. But the battle-lines had been drawn and it was only time before the two sides would flex muscles in eastern Congo.
The specific point of departure between Runiga and Makenga emerged from the direction of negotiations in Kampala.
Makenga, sources say, felt the negotiations should be narrowed down to focus on breaches of the 2009 agreement that led to the M23 rebellion. He focused on ethnic persecution and attracted other ethnic groups to his agenda.
Runiga, as a politician wanted to broaden the demands to governance. He saw that the broader platform would attract more support among non-Rwandan Congolese who feel oppressed by Kinshasa.
These inter and intra clan and factional rivalries meant that Rwanda could not actively support any of the groups in eastern Congo except at the price of being dragged into what was potential chaos.
Courting Museveni
Therefore, from the beginning of this conflict, and if the international community was genuinely committed to solving the problems of DRC, it needed Rwanda's aid. However, ignorance and prejudice combined with self-interest to push the international community into isolating Rwanda. Without Kigali to cajole and threaten M23, the Tutsi insurgents in DRC were a time bomb.
Meanwhile Kinshasa was always only happy to find an international scapegoat for its own internal failures and Rwanda was a perfect one. However, Kinshasa knew all too well the domestic dynamics – and therefore Kabila kept direct personal contact with both Ntaganda and Makenga, calling each one of them by phone regularly.
Sources say that through this interaction, Kabila was able to skillfully exploit historical animosities between the two men and their clans – trying to woo both by bad mouthing the other. Congolese intelligence may be corrupt and incompetent in almost everything under the sun but it is efficient in one thing – spreading rumours. Thus, sources say, Congolese intelligence led each side (Makenga and Ntaganda) to believe that the other was working with Kinshasa to clinch a deal behind the other's back. This increased internal suspicions, which fed into historical clan rivalries. However, what Congo lacks in military and political capacity it may achieve in diplomacy.
Since 2011, when relations between Uganda and Rwanda significantly improved significantly, President Museveni and Kagame have been viewed as natural allies. Museveni is the lead mediator on the conflict in Congo. As new alliances are forged, it appears Rwanda's enemies might want isolate Kagame even from Museveni.
There is a risk if some parties play on their previous animosities to draw the two leaders apart by taking positions that may favour Kampala but hurt Kigali.
When Museveni lost his father, Kagame was expected to fly to Uganda for the funeral. He did not and sent condolences sparking speculation.
Meanwhile, Kikwete flew directly from Addis Ababa to Rwakitura to attend the funeral. Later Kabila flew from Addis Ababa as well to Kinshasa before flying to Rwakitura to lay a wreath on Mzee Amos' Kaguta's grave, apparently, sources claim, on the instigation of Kikwete. In the end, observers say, the big security picture in the region could be decided by small matters such as these.
Les implications probables
du vol de Ntaganda
Lundi, le 18 mars, l'ancien chef du mouvement de rebelle congolais CNDP, le général Bosco Ntaganda, a apparu à l'improviste à l'ambassade Américaine dans Kigali sous la main lui-même aux américains. Il était smarting d'un échec militaire aux mains son allié ancien et égaler maintenant, Sultan Makenga, qui est à la tête du mouvement de rebelle M23 dans DRC de l'est.
Après le fait de marcher par le Parc national Virunga qui couvre les zones limitrophes du Congo, le Rwanda et l'Ouganda, il a conduit à Kigali fort probablement de Ruhengeri inobservé par les forces de sécurité du Rwanda. Les fonctionnaires de Rwandan ont été pris par surpris quand ils ont reçu des nouvelles des américains de l'aspect de Ntaganda dans leur capitale en cherchant l'extradition dans la Haye où il est voulu pour les crimes de guerre.
La bagarre intérieure dans M23 a aussi lancé les efforts régionaux de mettre fin à ce conflit dans la confusion. Au départ du mars, les Présidents Joseph Kabila de la République démocratique de Congo, Eduardo Dos Santos de l'Angola et
Related Content
KAMPALA (Reuters) - Congo has rejected calls for an exclusively African regional force to tackle a raging insurgency in the country's east, accusing neighbouring states of involvement, and ruled out any negotiations with the rebels behind the crisis.
Fighting between M23 rebels and Democratic Republic of Congo government forces has displaced nearly half a million people since April and damaged relations between neighbouring countries in the Great Lakes region that have a history of conflict. Regional African leaders agreed last month on the idea of a "neutral force" to take on Congo-based rebel groups. But when heads of state of east and central African nations met this week in Kampala to discuss the eastern Congo crisis, they failed to agree on whether such a force would be drawn from their own countries or have a broader U.N. make-up. Congolese Foreign Minister Raymond Tshibanda said Kinshasa would accept soldiers from certain central and east African states as part of an international mission, but not from Rwanda and neighbouring states that he did not specify. The U.N. Security Council last week demanded an end to foreign support for the Tutsi-led M23 rebels, a rebuke diplomats said was aimed at Rwanda and Uganda. Rwanda has denied accusations by U.N. officials that its military has provided equipment and recruits for the M23 rebellion. Uganda has rejected similar accusations. Congo favours an expanded role for the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo while Rwanda and Uganda, under pressure from the West to cut all links to the M23 insurgency, want a regional force to tackle the rebels. STICK WITH UN FORCE, CONGO SAYS "To us, the quickest and easiest way, is to use the mechanism that's already in the DRC," Tshibanda told reporters late on Wednesday in Kampala. "(The neutral force) cannot involve Rwandan troops because Rwanda is part of the problem. These negative forces operate on Congolese soil but they come from neighbouring countries. So I think these ... countries logically shouldn't be part of this force." The regional heads of state said they would decide the composition of the force at a later meeting. The United Nations has more than 17,000 peacekeepers in Congo but they have often struggled to halt fighting and protect civilians in the vast, unruly central African state, which produces gold, copper, tin, diamonds and other minerals. Tshibanda said the Congo government was unwilling to negotiate with rebels who have seen their ranks swelled by hundreds of defectors from the Congolese army. "We don't want them to survive as a movement, as an ideology, we don't want to see their actions continue... there is no question about it, and there is nothing to discuss, to negotiate," he said. The M23 name comes from a 2009 peace accord the rebels say was violated by Kinshasa, an assertion denied by the government. Benjamin Mbonimpa of M23's political wing said it was ready for dialogue and that the Kampala meeting had failed. "Whilst they were in Kampala (the army) has been reinforcing its positions... We've always said we're open to dialogue but if they attack us we'll defend ourselves," he said on Wednesday. Dictatorships in Uganda and Rwanda: root cause of Eastern Congo crisis The ongoing crisis in Eastern Congo has been raising countless discussions on possible solutions in different circles. We have witnessed donors cutting or delaying their aid to Rwanda. This was after UN experts found the country guilty of strongly supporting M23, the Congolese rebel group responsible of the current humanitarian crisis created in the region since the fighting started in April of this year. In addition, as of mid-July, at the AU summit held in Addis Ababa, it was decided to set up an international force to stand between Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo and monitor the border. The force would also have for mission to track and destroy "negative forces" as armed militias operating in the region are called. The irony of the idea of having that force as neutral as possible is that Uganda and Rwanda, though alleged to be involved in supporting M23 at different degrees and despite their official denial, are almost leading in its establishment. But US Congressmen are skeptical about the efficiency of such new force coming on top of the UN peacekeeping mission which has been operating from the particular province of North Kivu for the last 10 years at least, and is staffed with a 20,000 men force. In their letter dated 3rd August and addressed to President Kagame, they argue that, "… it is far from clear how that force will be implemented, and it will not ultimately address the underlying problems between Rwanda and DRC or in the broader region." Among these underlying problems there are undoubtedly the dictatorial regimes of Uganda and Rwanda led respectively by presidents Joweri Museveni and Paul Kagame. The Ugandan president has been in power for 26 years. During all those years, it would be a gargantuan task to evoke all atrocities committed under his leadership from the time he went in the bush in 1981 after being democratically defeated and starting a war to seize power by force. The Rwandan president, who has 18 years as the strong man of his country, has been mentored by Museveni while serving as his Chief of Internal Intelligence service. Crimes he is alleged to be responsible of have been documented by many international institutions including UN and Human Rights Watch. Saying that both regimes are fundamentally undemocratic would be an understatement. It suffices to consult records of political prisoners upheld in each country, or journalists who have been killed, exiled, or are in prisons. Unfortunately it is not only in those areas that one needs to look at to understand how their respective leaderships are corrupt, discriminative in distributing national wealth among their citizens. Though the recent move of several donor countries have suspended their aid to Rwanda is laudable to make Kagame rethink his persistent actions of destabilization of DRC, it does not address the root cause of never ending politics of violence and oppression Uganda and Rwanda have established in the region. For the West not to review fundamentally their relationship with Rwanda and Uganda is considered by informed citizens of the Great Lakes region as a sign of ongoing complicity with these regimes in the misery of local populations. I am convinced that linking efforts of improving stability in the region with tangible pressure on Kagame and Museveni to provide more political space to their non violent oppositions, and bringing all antagonists together for a dialogue on critical issues would bring more sustainable peace and development. It is regrettable that billions of $ have been spent on MONUSCO and ICTR to achieve nothing more than an ongoing instability in the region and a state of unprecedented division between Hutus and Tutsis, particularly in Rwanda.  Kayumba Nyamwasa, president's closest confidant during years after genocide, calls for uprising to overthrow him International | Anti-WarBill Clinton's damage control mission re Rwanda's war in Congo Bill Clinton traveled to Rwanda within weeks of the UN Panel of Experts on Congo's report that Paul Kagame's Rwandan regime is behind the M23 militia that has resumed the war in D.R. Congo. Critics, including many Rwandan and Congolese people, believe that he really went to do damage control.
Aid donors UK and US must condemn Rwanda's support for Congo rebellionRwanda is backing a revolt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's eastern region. The US and UK, as Rwanda's largest aid donors, must hold the Kigali government to account
 Soldiers from the M23 rebel group walk towards one of their positions in North Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Photograph: Melanie Gouby/AFP/Getty Images A recent UN report reveals the Rwandan government has violated the Democratic Republic of the Congo's (DRC) national sovereignty and breached international sanctions by providing soldiers, weapons, ammunition and financial support to a new rebellion in eastern DRC that began in March. The UN details how the M23 revolt enjoys direct support from senior levels of Rwanda's government, including the defence minister, General James Kabarebe. Findings like these should create political shockwaves across Rwanda's donor community. The UK and US in particular, as the country's two largest single donors, have a key role to play. Donor funds constitute 26% of Rwanda's 2012-15 budget and donors should be using the influence this kind of support affords to ensure Rwanda immediately stops supporting the M23. Instead, the donor community has been largely silent since the report came out. Rather than condemning Rwanda, the US government's first reaction was to attempt to block the report's publication, although it later issued a statement of deep concern. The UK, which this year alone has committed £75m of taxpayers' money to Rwanda, has shied away from public comment and expects us instead to be reassured by personal expressions of "concern" made by the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, to Rwanda's foreign minister. The UK's lack of public reaction is astounding. DRC is rated near the of bottom of the 2011 Human Development Index. It has one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the world. In eastern DRC, where the Rwandan-backed rebellion is taking place, civilians have endured attacks, pillage, torture, rape and murder for over 15 years. The UK Department for International Development's website makes the case clearly, saying the DRC is: "… one of the poorest countries in the world and is said to be the worst county in the world to be a woman … Years of conflict have left the country deeply impoverished, without basic services and infrastructure." Worse still, Rwanda is backing a rebellion whose leader, General Bosco Ntaganda, is wanted by the international criminal court to face war crimes charges. Since 2009, Ntaganda has seized control of some of the region's richest mining areas. He has built up a highly lucrative minerals trafficking operation. It is highly likely that proceeds from this racketeering have been used to finance the fighting. Global attention must be brought back on to this issue. The Rwandan government's actions and the new rebellion in eastern DRC cannot be written off as strategically unimportant or – worse – as Congo fatigue. In 2008, the last time rebels threatened to attack Goma, the then Labour government's foreign secretary, David Miliband, flew to the region for emergency talks with the DRC president, Joseph Kabila. Today's situation demands similar high-level intervention from our government, and not only through negotiations. That does mean, in the first instance, public condemnation. Our government should be reaching out to other states in the region so that they too call upon the Rwandan authorities to change course. Kabila, Kagame in Kampala over Congo CrisisPublish Date: Aug 07, 2012  A Congolese soldier walks in the market on the outskirt of Goma on August 5, 2012. Clashes between l The presidents of Rwanda and DR Congo will take part in a regional summit in Uganda Tuesday to agree on a neutral force tasked with policing their border and neutralising rebel groups, officials said. President Yoweri Museveni will host the two-day summit of 11-member International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) at Munyonyo. Kigali confirmed Rwanda's Paul Kagame would attend while airport sources in Kinshasa said Congolese President Joseph Kabila was already on his way there. The United Nations will also dispatch a representative to the summit, which aims to defuse mounting tensions between Rwanda and DR Congo, who have traded accusations of supporting eachother's rebels. Kinshasa charges that Rwanda is arming the M-23 mutiny which has battled regular forces in the eastern DR Congo since May while Kigali accuses its neighbour of plotting attacks with Rwandan Hutu rebels based in the same region. A UN report published in June said there was ample evidence that Kigali was actively involved in the M-23 rebellion led by a renegade Congolese general who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Rwandan President Paul Kagame said in mid-July that both sides had agreed "in principle" to accept a neutral force. A meeting of regional defence ministers held in Khartoum last week was supposed to hammer out some of the details of the force, as Kigali and Kinshasa hold divergent views of which troops would be neutral. Kinshasa has said it favours using MONUSCO, the 19,000-strong UN stabilisation force deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Kigali, while it has not issued any outright public refusal of MONUSCO, argues that the UN force is anything but neutral. Regional foreign ministers holding preparatory meetings behind closed doors Monday were discussing at least three types of force, according to documents available at the venue. One option would see the region's states contribute troops and funds. The African Union has said it is ready to contribute to such a force. A second option is "an international and regional force incorporated into MONUSCO" and including a beefed up mandate as MONUSCO's current mandate is limited to the protection of civilians. A third idea is an "interim MONUSCO force" but the document did not specify if this would be in addition to the "international and regional force." Even if a compromise is reached, the troops still need to be capable of routing some of the most battle-hardened fighters in the region, be it the M-23 or the Rwandan FDLR rebels. The 11-nation ICGLR comprises Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia.
AFP Rwanda: Paul Kagame's problemThe formula of 'bread today, freedom tomorrow' is one that has led many a leader, and many a country, to ruin
It is hard now to recall how high were the hopes invested in what was called "the new generation" of African leaders. Men like Yoweri Museveni in Uganda, Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia, Isaias Afewerki in Eritrea, and Paul Kagame in Rwanda were seen as ushering in a harmonious era of democracy, clean government, and peaceful inter-state relations in sub-Saharan Africa. The US and Britain in particular were enthusiastic supporters of the new men, not least because they saw their governments as reliably pro-western. Nearly 20 years later all those leaders have disappointed, and some have disappointed mightily. Paul Kagame has until recently been the exception. Criticism of his government's tight control domestically and of its continuing interventions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been muted, and there has been, by African standards, a very generous flow of aid. The recent UN report on Rwandan support for insurgents in eastern Congo has changed the picture. The US has suspended military aid and an American official has even suggested that Kagame and other members of the government could find themselves facing prosecution at the international criminal court. The military aid programme is small, and the ICC suggestion verges on the fantastical. But these kinds of decisions and these sorts of remarks do indicate a shift in attitude toward the Kigali government. This should be welcomed if it means that there will be more conditionality, preferably of the informal kind, in relations between Rwanda and western governments, and more readiness to speak out in the future. But it is important to put Rwanda in context. The government has been called "a minority within a minority" in the sense that it is not even sure of the full allegiance of all Tutsis, let alone the majority Hutus. Nor is it a monolith, but rather a coalition of groups and individuals which Kagame has to assuage, even if this is not usually visible. Kagame's controlling personality is another factor. The best gloss on the regime's domestic policies is that it is intent on establishing a flourishing economy and nurturing social changes before bringing about a wider political opening. The best gloss on its foreign policies is that Kagame reckons the country must remain a player in the Congo to forestall developments that could threaten the stability of Rwanda itself. The worst gloss on both is that the formula of "bread today, freedom tomorrow" is one that has led many a leader, and many a country, to ruin. Paul Kagame is an impressive man who almost certainly knows that he should slacken his too-tight grip. The problem is that knowing something and doing it are two different things. The end of the west's humiliating affair with Paul KagameThe US has belatedly woken up to the warts-and-all reality of the Rwandan president. When will Britain acknowledge that its development darling may have feet of clay?
 Paul Kagame meets the former US president Bill Clinton and his daughter, Chelsea, in Rwanda. Photograph: Cyril Ndegeya/AP A "visionary leader," said Tony Blair; "one of the greatest leaders of our time," echoed Bill Clinton. Such hero worship is usually reserved for South Africa's Nelson Mandela. But Blair and Clinton were describing the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame. The UK and US have staked their pride, reputations and ability to judge character, not to mention hundreds of millions of pounds in aid, on Kagame's powers of post-genocide healing and reconciliation matching those of Mandela after apartheid. That is why the US decision to cut aid, and now to warn Kagame that he could even face criminal prosecution over meddling in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, is a humiliating but long overdue reversal. It piles the pressure on Britain to make a similar admission that its long-time darling, revered as a success story that underpins an entire ideology around donor development aid, could have feet of clay. There are two main reasons why Kagame's Rwanda has been bulletproof for so long. One is western guilt over doing nothing to stop the 1994 genocide, in which 800,000 people perished. Clinton, whose most recent visit was last week, has described it as "my personal failure". The UK, US and others rushed to embrace the east African state's new leadership and support the rebuilding of the country: Rwanda was a special case, and would be given more leeway than most. The aid taps were turned on and the money flowed, with tangible results: great gains in education and health and in the reduction of crime and poverty. Secondly, then, Rwanda has come to symbolise what donor aid can do. It has been a trump card for the defence of the Department for International Development (DfID) when the Treasury attempts to turn the screws. Britain is the country's biggest bilateral donor, with an average of £83m a year. "When Clare Short was secretary of state, she was Kagame's number-one fan," says Carina Tertsakian, Human Rights Watch's senior researcher on Rwanda. "In her eyes, he could do no wrong. We're still living with the legacy of that now. Tony Blair was also taken in." Blair was, and remains, one of Kagame's most ardent cheerleaders, and an unpaid adviser. His charity, the Africa Governance Initiative, places young interns in Rwandan government offices. Eighteen months ago, he told the Guardian: "I'm a believer in, and a supporter of, Paul Kagame. I don't ignore all those criticisms, having said that. But I do think you've got to recognise that Rwanda is an immensely special case because of the genocide. "Secondly, you can't argue with the fact that Rwanda has gone on a remarkable path of development. Every time I visit Kigali and the surrounding areas, you can just see the changes being made in the country." David Cameron appears almost equally enamoured, and the current development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, visited Rwanda only last week. He said he had delivered "frank messages" to both Rwanda and Congo about the current instability and violence. Diplomatic language apart, however, Britain has been painfully silent about Rwanda's pernicious influence in its war-torn neighbour. The recent UN group of experts' report named names in the Rwandan government and military who are in contact with Congolese rebels, feeding from the trough of its mineral resources and supplying weapons and uniforms. Yet Kagame categorically denies it , and Britain apparently believes him, or can't bear to disbelieve, lest it suffer buyer's remorse. "Kagame was here last week and told a barefaced lie to David Cameron and other British officials," says one UK-based analyst. "He denied Rwandan meddling in Congo even though the evidence is overwhelming." Britain and others have turned a similarly blind eye to Rwanda's domestic affairs. The state has been accused of murder and intimidation; political opponents and journalists have been jailed. In 2008, the Economist said of Kagame: "Although he vigorously pursues his admirers in western democracies, he allows less political space and press freedom at home than Robert Mugabe does in Zimbabwe." The warts-and-all reality has been dawning on the US for some time. In 2010 it sounded warnings that "the political environment ahead of the election has been riddled by a series of worrying actions taken by the government of Rwanda, which appear to be attempts to restrict the freedom of expression". Kagame was re-elected with 93% of the vote. None of this fits the development darling narrative, however. Instead, it is much less unpleasant for visiting diplomatics to admire the transformation of the capital, Kigali, with its safety, orderliness and cleanliness (there is a ban on plastic bags). Rwanda has a flourishing economy and well-oiled PR machine, and the affable Kagame uses that most democratic of media, Twitter. In decades past, the west has been criticised for applying selective vision to the sins of leaders such as Mugabe and Idi Amin until late in the day. America, it seems, is reluctantly removing the scales from its eyes regarding Paul Kagame. For Washington it may merely represent the end of a beautiful friendship; for London, it will feel more like a broken heart. Developing countries want G20 to refocus on worldNovember 3rd 2011 AP – 2 hrs 39 mins ago
CANNES, France (AP) — This week's G-20 summit was dominated by Europe's debt crisis, but developing countries want the grouping of major economies to refocus on a bigger global agenda that includes creating jobs, improving farming and fighting climate change. China, Brazil and other rising powers won a bigger voice in U.S.- and European-dominated global affairs following the 2008 financial crisis. But flare-ups in the eurozone have distracted leaders from what they say should be efforts to reform global finance and improve life in poorer societies. Now, as Mexico succeeds France as leader of the G-20, developing countries are pushing for more attention to long-term changes aimed at making the global economic system more equitable, increasing investment in Africa, making farming more productive and stimulating investment and trade. "The key issue is not to allow the G-20 to be overwhelmed by the crisis in Europe," said Mac Maharaj, a spokesman for South African President Jacob Zuma. Instead, "it should attempt to come up with a plan that incorporates bringing about growth in developing countries." The two-day G-20 summit in this Mediterranean resort was dominated by rapid-fire developments in debt-ridden Greece's chaotic politics and talk of how to strengthen the International Monetary Fund, both to play a bigger role in a European bailout and to help shaky economies elsewhere. A joint communique issued Friday promised to reform financial industries to prevent a repeat of excesses that have prompted protests; invest in research to improve farm productivity; reform energy subsidies that encourage waste; and create jobs for young people. But the financial crisis might mean governments are not paying enough attention to the long term, said Daniel Schwanen, an economist at Canada's Center for International Governance Innovation, a think tank. "Where is the employment agenda? Where is the growth agenda?" he said. "We've been sidetracked by the emergency debt issues." A G-20 panel produced a list of priorities ahead of the Cannes meeting that included improving conditions to attract investment in infrastructure to Africa, increasing food security and regulating capital flows. Mexico is expected to make employment and the needs of poorer countries a priority during its yearlong tenure as the G-20 president. "There's a recognition that lack of jobs for young people brings social challenges and a decline in social cohesion," said South Africa's finance minister, Pravin Gordhan. "The public around the world has been making clear that these are challenges that require urgent attention." The G-20 emerged as a major forum after the 2008 financial crisis battered the United States and Europe, which turned to China, India and other fast-growing developing economies for help in reviving global growth. It has given midsize economies such as Turkey, Indonesia and Mexico a seat at the top policymaking table for the first time. "It is developing countries over the next five to 10 years that have the best prospects of ensuring the world grows at the required level," said Gordhan. Still, the G-20 has yet to replace the more influential Group of Eight that groups together the United States, Japan and Europe's biggest economies. On Thursday, Chinese President Hu Jintao called for a still larger role for emerging countries in "a more equal and balanced global partnership." "We should further unleash the development potential of emerging markets and developing countries and boost the economic growth of developing countries," he said in a speech to other G20 leaders, according to a transcript released by the Chinese government. African Development Bank AfDB At the G20 - Cannes Summit2 November 2011 SPONSOR WIRE
G20 Panel recommends Sokoni technology platform for infrastructure development in Africa G20 leaders today welcomed the recommendations of the High-Level Panel for Infrastructure Development, endorsing the development of the Sokoni Africa Infrastructure Marketplace. The African Development Bank (AfDB) and top Silicon Valley software engineering firm Zanbato Group teamed up to create Sokoni, the first online marketplace for infrastructure projects in Africa. Sokoni is a technology platform that increases the quality of information available to investors through better links to project sponsors and financiers. Read More Africa is 'Land of Opportunity' and Can Help World Return to Growth - AfDB President, Donald Kaberuka, says at G20 in Paris Africa is a land of opportunity and growth said Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank (AfDB), in a speech at the G20 meeting in Paris on 21 October 2011 ahead of the summit in Cannes in November. He said that Africa had, over the past decade, made a great leap forward, and had left behind the stagnation of the past. 8 August 2012 Last updated at 12:23 ET DR Congo conflict: Kagame and Kabila fail to agree on force The fighting has made about 250,000 people homeless Regional leaders have failed to agree at a summit in Uganda on deploying a new force to tackle militia groups in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. "We will meet again in four weeks," Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said, the AFP news agency reports. Last month, the African Union called for a force to be established within weeks, as conflict escalated. Meanwhile, gunmen have attacked the airport in the southern Congolese mining city of Lubumbashi. At least one soldier was killed in a shoot-out that lasted several hours. The government blamed a similar attack on the airport last year on armed men linked to secessionists in the south-east. 'Neutral force' In the separate conflict in eastern DR Congo, nearly 250,000 people have been displaced since April following a rebellion launched by renegade General Bosco Ntaganda, the UN says. Gen Ntaganda's M23 rebel movement - which has been active in the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu - is accused by the UN and DR Congo government of receiving military backing from Rwanda. The leaders of DR Congo and Rwanda - Joseph Kabila and Paul Kagame respectively - attended the summit in Uganda in an effort to resolve the conflict. But there was no clear agreement on the deployment of a force or to take other measures to achieve peace, correspondents say. Instead, a post-summit statement issued by the leaders said defence ministers should come up with "actionable steps to ensure that fighting stops completely" and provide details on the "operationalisation of the neutral international force". The UN has more than 20,000 troops in DR Congo and the AU says it should be bolstered by a regional force. Last month, Mr Kagame told AFP that he and Mr Kabila agreed "in principle" on a neutral force. Eastern DR Congo has been plagued by fighting since 1994, when more than a million ethnic Hutus crossed the border into DR Congo following the Rwandan genocide, in which some 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Rwanda has since twice invaded its much larger neighbour, saying it was trying to take action against Hutu rebels based in DR Congo. Bemba Trial Website (The Hague)Congo-Kinshasa: Prosecutors Dispute Expert's Conclusions on BembaInternational Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutors on Friday questioned the conclusions reached by a military expert called by the defense, who concluded that war crimes accused Jean-Pierre Bemba was not in command of his troops that are said to have committed atrocities. Prosecution lawyer Eric Iverson pointed out that General Jacques Seara, the expert who was testifying for the defense, did not review all relevant facts and material to enable him back up his conclusions that contradict those reached by the prosecution's military expert. In his report to the court, which has formed the basis of his testimony since Tuesday, retired French brigadier-general Jacques Seara disputed the conclusions of the prosecution expert. The prosecution's expert, Kenyan retired general Daniel Opande, previously assertied that the accused had the necessary means to directly command his Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC) troops during the conflict. Most of today' cross-examination of General Seara was done in closed session. "Would it surprise you to know he [General Opande] reviewed seven documents you did not review, totalling 100 pages, and when you haven't reviewed the same information or datasets, is it unfair to criticize or assess his expert opinion?" asked Mr. Iverson in the few moments of open court. "If the other expert received different documents, it is possible he might arrive at a different conclusion. Nevertheless, after reading the other military expert's report, in addition to other documents, one could still make observations," replied General Seara. General Seara has also written an expert report for the court. His report, based on an analysis of documents availed to him by the defense and interviews with senior officers in the Central African army and the MLC, concludes that Mr. Bemba's forces who were deployed in the conflict country were under the command of Central African military authorities. General Opande wrote a report for the court on military command structures and command responsibility. The report was based on material provided by the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP), including witness statements and other resources. In his testimony last December, the Kenyan general stated that Mr. Bemba, through wire and radio transmissions, had "assured means" of issuing direct commands to his troops on the Central African frontline from his headquarters in Congo. "If you have the means to monitor, the distance doesn't matter. There are commanders who are thousands of miles away from their troops, but they are still in control of their troops," said General Opande in his testimony. In his testimony over the past three days, General Seara has said that he did not see how Mr. Bemba could have been able to command his troops without an operations center, intelligence information, and secure telecommunications. "Commanding 1,500 people on the ground from a distance of over 1,000 kilometers in a situation where one is not informed of enemy troops, terrain, ammunition, details of the operations center, cohesion relating to the mission of the other forces, I do not see how it is possible for one to command under such circumstances," said General Seara. Mr. Bemba, the MLC commander-in-chief, is on trial at The Hague-based court over rapes, murders, and pillaging allegedly committed by his soldiers deployed in the Central African conflict between October 2002 and March 2003. Prosecutors charge that he made no efforts to train his troops on the law of war, that he ignored or discounted specific complaints about serious crimes committed by his soldiers, and that he made no efforts to punish the rowdy soldiers. He has pleaded not guilty to all five charges against him, arguing that he had no control over his troops once they entered the neighboring country. The trial resumes next Tuesday morning with further cross-examination of General Seara by the prosecution. DR Congo seeks 'neutral' intervention force Agence France Presse Saturday 18 August 2012 KINSHASA: An international military intervention planned for the Democratic Republic of Congo's restive east would have 4,000 troops from different African countries, Defense Minister Alexandre Luba Ntambo said yesterday. The proposed "neutral international force" would not include troops from DR Congo or any of the countries accused of involvement in the fighting in the country's volatile Kivu region, Luba Ntambo said the day after meeting six other defense ministers from around the region to tackle the unrest. Eastern DR Congo has been rife with rival militia and rebel forces since the 2003 end of a war that engulfed large tracts of the vast central African country. Most recently, the army has been fighting deserters from its own ranks who have formed an armed group called M23, made up of ethnic Tutsi ex-rebels who were incorporated into the army in 2009 under a peace deal that they say was never fully implemented. The group's clashes with the army have forced some 250,000 people from their homes near the border with Rwanda. DR Congo President Joseph Kabila and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame have agreed on a neutral force to pacify the region, but heads of state from the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) have so far failed to reach agreement on its composition. At their meeting, Luba Ntambo and the defense minister of Angola, Burundi, Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda agreed that the M23 rebels must "return to their pre-June 30 positions" on three hills near the Ugandan and Rwandan borders, he said. The rebels must also stop "all unconstitutional activity," including setting up their own local governments and replacing the national flag with their own, he added. The ministers have sent a report to Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, who will present it in September at the next summit of the ICGLR. Kagame: Stop blaming Rwanda for the mess in DRC Rwanda President Paul Kagame. Photo/File By Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda (email the author) In Summary
These are excerpts from President Kagame's Speech at the inauguration of the senior command and staff college and course on 23rd July, 2012. There are regional issues with challenges and opportunities, some of which will be there for some time. These issues end up being international. They are complicated even further by international actors. This is the situation we have in the Congo. Looking at it superficially, as some have, it is easy to apportion the blame; indeed, put the blame on Rwanda's shoulders. But this problem has not been caused nor abetted by Rwanda. In the past three to four years, no one has worked as hard as Rwanda for peace in both our country and our neighbours. The recent problem was created by the international community – our partners. They don't listen, nor provide the solution, they just keep creating problems. We know our problems and those of the region better than they do; we are genuine about wanting to find a solution. They will come, run over everything and when things explode, turn around and blame it on you. The Democratic Republic of Congo had elections. We tried to play a very positive role with the government in Congo despite its many problems. We worked together on security challenges that have affected us for the past 18 years. Some people are not happy about that so they come up with the idea to have certain people arrested in the Congo for justice, for accountability, which is good if only it wasn't selective. They came to us and said, "You know what, we want to arrest some people in Congo and we want you to help arrest these people." Go ahead and arrest them, why do you even come to us? They said, "No, we want you to help the government of DRC arrest so and so." We said, "Oh, how did this become our problem? Why don't you go and help arrest the people you want to arrest for the International Criminal Court? For whatever reasons, you do not even need to explain to us, go ahead and do whatever you want to do but don't involve us, we don't want it, we don't want to be involved, we don't even understand what you are doing?" Instead, they shifted pressure to us. This was before this conflict. We even tried to be helpful. I was the first person to call the DRC president when we learned what was going on and how it was being messed up: "You know what, there is something coming up that I don't understand. Are you aware of it? Are you behind it with these others I hear about? Aren't you creating problems for yourself?" He said, "Yes, they have come to me, they have told me this, but my approach is different. I want to arrest this fellow for his indiscipline, but I am not handing him over to the ICC." Anyway, for the reason that they are able to put the mess they have caused on other people's shoulders, they don't listen. They don't listen — the same way they never listened when genocide was taking place here in Rwanda. In fact, this ICTR they put in place to try people on genocide should have tried some members of the international community. They never listen even when they see facts, even when they see things happening because they have the power to blame the mess on someone else. Congo's Kabila says to arrest wanted army generalGOMA, Congo | GOMA, Congo (Reuters) - Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila announced on Wednesday that authorities would arrest a serving army general wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes. "I want to arrest Bosco Ntaganda because the whole population wants peace," Kabila said during a trip to eastern Congo where Ntaganda has remained a divisive figure at the heart of the unrest long after the official end of a 1998-2003 war. The ICC has been seeking Ntaganda's arrest for six years on charges he conscripted children to fight in a bloody ethnic conflict in northeastern Congo that grew out of a broader civil war. Ntaganda denies involvement in war crimes. Kabila's announcement marked a reversal for the Congolese government which had previously resisted calls to arrest Ntaganda, saying he was the lynchpin for a fragile peace deal that integrated his fighters into the national army in 2009. However, the president stopped short of promising his extradition to The Hague, announcing he would instead stand trial in Congo on unspecified charges. "I do not work for the international community. What I want to do is for the Congolese population," Kabila said, adding that Ntaganda would be tried in Goma, the capital of North Kivu province where the general has his stronghold. Several soldiers loyal to Ntaganda have deserted over the past week, and Ntaganda's exact whereabouts were unclear on Wednesday. "We're looking for him ... He and all the other soldiers who defected will be arrested and brought to justice," said the head of the Congolese army, General Didier Etumba. 'WORDS INTO ACTION' Former rebel leader Thomas Lubanga, Ntaganda's co-accused in the ICC case, last month became the first person to be found guilty by the international court. His conviction sparked calls, including from the United Nations and United States, for Ntaganda to be apprehended. In a statement sent to Reuters on Wednesday, ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Ntaganda "should be arrested, for the sake and the security of victims and citizens in the whole region." Beyond the ICC charges, rights groups have accused Ntaganda of being behind human rights violations spanning a decade. Troops under his command have been implicated in the deaths of hundreds of civilians in the northeastern Ituri district. In 2008, his fighters went door-to-door in the town of Kiwanja during a two-day massacre in which at least 150 people were killed. The United Nations has also said Ntaganda operates a criminal network smuggling minerals across the border into Rwanda, despite international efforts to stamp out so called "conflict minerals" in the region. "(Kabila's) announcement is a welcome step in the right direction, but he now needs to turn words into action," Anneke van Woudenberg, senior Congo researcher for campaign group Human Rights Watch, told Reuters. Leaders of Congo's small Tutsi minority group that forms Ntaganda's support base, warned against arresting him, in a letter addressed to Kabila last month. "The Tutsi community considers that the arrest of General Bosco (Ntaganda) will undermine the entire peace process in Congo," the letter said. (Reporting by Kenny Katumba in Goma and Sara Webb in Amsterdam; Writing by Jonny Hogg; Editing by Mark John, Joe Bavier and Robin Pomeroy) Related NewsOfficial says Uganda not fighting in Congo, says Uganda helping to resolve conflict
By Associated Press, Published: August 3rd 2012
KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda's foreign affairs minister says the country's forces are not fighting in the Congo and that Uganda's president is actively trying to help resolve the conflict there.
Minister Okello Oryem told reporters in Kampala on Friday that allegations of Uganda's military involvement in the Congo are "rubbish." He said President Yoweri Museveni visited Angola this week to consult with officials on how best to find a regional solution to the Congo violence. Personal Post Next week Uganda will host a conference on regional security that President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Joseph Kabila of Congo are expected to attend.
The U.N. has accused Rwanda of supporting M23 rebels in eastern Congo, and Congolese officials are investigating accusations that the Ugandan military is also involved. Rwanda Responds to New DR Congo Rebel Support ClaimsThe government has accused the UN Group of Experts of "bad faith" following the publication of a new document linking Rwanda to M23, a rebel force in eastern DR Congo. The New Times, 15 August 2012 The Government of Rwanda this week accused the UN Group of Experts (GoE) on the Congo of "bad faith" following the publication of a new document linking Kigali to the M23 rebels, ... read more »  Photo: Martine Perret/UN UN peacekeepers in DR Congo (file photo): The Rwandan government has contested the report's finding that several graves belonged to rebel forces and asserts that they were UN peacekeepers. Bemba Trial Website (The Hague)Central African Republic: Expert Says Bemba Did Not Command Troops in Conflict CountryBy Wakabi Wairagala, 14 August 2012 Today, a military expert testifying in defense of Congolese opposition leader Jean-Pierre Bemba said the accused was not in command of his forces deployed in the 2002-2003 conflict in the Central African Republic (CAR). He said the foreign forces were subservient to the country's president and commander-in-chief and risked expulsion if they did not obey the president's orders. Jacques Seara, a retired brigadier-general of the French army, testified as the first witness in the defense of Mr. Bemba at the International Criminal Court (ICC). He said it was impossible for the various forces active in the conflict to have had different chains of command, as this would have led to chaos and possible incidents of friendly fire: "I can not see how there could have been several chains of command whereas the objective was one - liberate Bangui and push back the rebel forces to the Chadian border." Relevant LinksMr. Bemba stands accused of failing to control his troops, who allegedly massacred, raped, and pillaged during their deployment in the neighboring country. He denies the charges, arguing that he was not in command of the troops. Rather, he contends, then Central African president Ange-Félix Patassé commanded those soldiers. General Seara has written a report for the court, based on an analysis of documents availed to him by the defense and statements of senior officials in the Central African army and the accused's Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC). Most of the officers he interviewed played central roles in the conflict. The expert's July 2012 report concludes that Central African authorities issued directives to all loyalist forces active in the conflict. In the report, he sketches the chain of command of these armed groups. While describing the sketch in court this afternoon, he indicated that Mr. Patassé was the commander-in-chief of all the loyalist forces. These groups included the regular Central African army (FACA), the MLC, the Community of Saharan-Sahel State (CEN-SAD) forces, the presidential guard brigade, private militia forces led by Colonel Abdoulaye Miskine and Paul Barrel, as well as local ethnic militia groups. According to the expert, the CAR armed forces could not have let the Congolese soldiers conduct operations independently and be perceived as the ones that restored order. "It is a matter of national pride to see the national armed forces involved in operations rather than leave it to a foreign force," he stated. As such, the Congolese forces could not have conducted any military operations on their own. General Seara served with the French army for 37 years and has specializations in intelligence, civil-military affairs, training, and command. He also served with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 2004 to 2006. The expert also stated today that Mustafa Mukiza, the commander of Congolese troops deployed in the neighboring country, operated "far away from the [Central African] commanders that were commanding all the loyalist forces." Moreover, General Mukiza "was under the orders of the CAR forces and no one else". "He obeyed orders given to him. I do not see how he could have proceeded otherwise, said the expert. "They [MLC] had a role to play. If they had carried it out in their own way, they would have been thrown out." Rwanda Focus, 14 August 2012 "We don't want to get into arguments over facts; we want to be involved in verification processes, and we want to see peace restored to the Kivus," said Stephen Rapp, US ... read more » Congo-Kinshasa: Rebels Did Not Commit War Crimes - U.S. Envoy The New Times, 14 August 2012 There is no evidence the M23 rebels, who are fighting the Congo government, have committed war crimes, a top US war crimes official has said. read more » Congo-Kinshasa: Govt Calls on UN to 'Amend' DR Congo Report News of Rwanda, 13 August 2012 Not only does the Government of Rwanda want GoE head, American Steve Hege to correct the contested UN reports, but genocide survivors demand he be fired by the UN Secretary General read more » Rwanda: Survivors Petition UN Over Lead Expert on Congo The New Times, 10 August 2012 Ibuka, an umbrella organisation for Genocide survivors' associations, has petitioned the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, over the coordinator of the UN Group of Experts on the ... read more » Rwanda: Rwanda's Response to the UN Group of Experts Accusations (document) The Independent, 8 August 2012 Ten key disproven factual elements on Rwanda's alleged role in the DRC conflict read more » Rwanda: Govt Wants Lead UN Expert On Congo Probed The New Times, 7 August 2012 The Government of Rwanda has requested the United Nations to investigate circumstances under which Steve Hege was appointed as coordinator of the UN Group of Experts on the Congo ... read more »
Congo-Kinshasa: DRC Conflict Worsens, Oxfam WarnsBy Ips Correspondents, 7 August 2012 United Nations — Millions of people in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are under siege as they get killed, kidnapped and abused -as the rebel group M23 takes control of the area. Elodie Martel, Oxfam's Associate Country Director, said:"We have reached a new depth of misery in Congo's conflict when massacres go virtually unnoticed." The organization reports that the widespread lawlessness is destabilizing the two eastern provinces of North and South Kivu and close to half million people have left their homes in the past four months. According to Andrej Mahecic , spokesperson for the U.N. Refugee Agency, more than 470,000 Congolese have been uprooted since April - 220,000 in North Kivu and 200,000 in South Kivu - while more than 51,000 fled to neighbouring Uganda (31,600) and Rwanda (19,400.) "Vast swathes of the east have descended into chaos with no government or security presence. People have been abandoned to killing, rape, looting and extortion. They are fleeing for their lives and very little is being done to help," said Oxfam's Martel. Regional leaders are meeting during August 7-8 in Kampala, Uganda at the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region to try to reach agreement on the resolution of the conflict. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: "I reiterate my call to key international stakeholders to provide enhanced and sustained support to the Congolese authorities for Security Sector Reform and other key endeavours." Ban also pointed out the importance of implementing the Pact on Peace, Security and Development to ensure the regional stability. That accord was agreed by 11 countries on 2007 setting out four crucial areas of cooperation in order to reach peace in the Great Lakes area. Those 4 points are: security, democracy and governance, economic development, and humanitarian and social welfare. "I condemn the violence and serious human rights violations committed by the M23," said Ban, "as well as other armed groups, against civilians, including acts of sexual violence, summary executions, and the recruitment of children as combatants." The rebel group M23 started with mutiny within the Government Army in April 2012. Since then the hundreds of people have been killed, many more have left their homes and the humanitarian situation is a "catastrophe" according to Oxfam. The international organization reports that cholera is a risk in displaced camps, since January 2012 there has been more than 20,000 cases of this disease and 481 reported deaths. Second Congo WarFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Second Congo War (also known as the Great War of Africa) began in August 1998 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly called Zaire), and officially ended in July 2003 when the Transitional Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo took power; however, hostilities continue since then. The deadliest war in modern African history, it directly involved eight African nations, as well as about 25 armed groups. By 2008, the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation,[6] making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.[7] Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighboring countries.[8] Despite a formal end to the war in July 2003 and an agreement by the former belligerents to create a government of national unity, 1,000 people died daily in 2004 from easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease.[9] The war and the conflicts afterwards[which?] were driven by, among other things, the trade in conflict minerals.[10]
[edit] Kabila's march to KinshasaMain article: First Congo War  The First Congo War began in 1996 as Rwanda grew increasingly concerned that members of Rassemblement Démocratique pour le Rwanda militias, who were carrying out cross-border raids from Zaire (currently known as the Democratic Republic of Congo), were planning an invasion. The militias, mostly Hutu, were entrenched in refugee camps in eastern Zaire, where many had fled to escape the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front in the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide. The new Tutsi-dominated government of Rwanda protested this violation of their territorial integrity and began to give arms to the ethnically Tutsi Banyamulenge of eastern Zaire. The Mobutu government of Zaire vigorously denounced this intervention but possessed neither the military capability to halt it nor the political capital to garner international assistance. With active support from Rwanda, Uganda and Angola, Laurent-Désiré Kabila's rebel forces moved methodically down the Congo River, encountering only light resistance from the poorly trained, ill-disciplined forces of Mobutu's crumbling regime. The bulk of Kabila's fighters were Tutsis and many were veterans of various conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Kabila himself had credibility because he had been a longtime political opponent of Mobutu, and had been a follower of Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the independent Congo who was murdered by a combination of internal and external forces, to be replaced by the then-Lt. Gen. Mobutu in 1965. Kabila had declared himself a Marxist and an admirer of Mao Zedong. He had been waging armed rebellion in eastern Zaire for more than three decades, though, according to Che Guevara's account of the early years of the conflict, he was an uncommitted and uninspiring leader.[11] Kabila's army began a slow movement westward in December 1996 near the end of the Great Lakes refugee crisis, taking control of border towns and mines and solidifying control. However, there were reports of massacres and brutal repression by the rebel army. A UN human rights investigator published statements from witnesses claiming that Kabila's ADFLC engaged in massacres, and that as many as 60,000 civilians were killed by the advancing army (a claim strenuously denied by the ADFLC). Roberto Garreton stated that his investigation in Goma turned up allegations of disappearances, torture and killings. He quoted Moese Nyarugabo, an aide to Mobutu, as saying that killings and disappearances should be expected in wartime. Kabila's forces launched an offensive in March 1997 and demanded that the government surrender. On March 27 the rebels took Kasenga. The government denied the rebels' success, starting a long pattern of false statements from the Defense Minister as to the progress and conduct of the war. Negotiations were proposed in late March, and on April 2 a new Prime Minister, Etienne Tshisekedi--a longtime rival of Mobutu--was installed. Kabila, by this point in rough control of one-quarter of the country, dismissed this as irrelevant and warned Tshisekedi that he would have no part in a new government if he accepted the post. Throughout April the ADFLC made consistent progress down the river, and by May was on the outskirts of Kinshasa. On May 16 the multinational army headed by Kabila battled to secure Lubumbashi airport[citation needed] after peace talks broke down and Mobutu fled the country (he died on September 7, 1997, in Morocco). After securing Kinshasa, he proclaimed himself president on the same day and immediately ordered a violent crackdown to restore order. He then began an attempt at reorganization of the nation. [edit] Unwelcome supportWhen Kabila gained control of the capital in May 1997, he faced substantial obstacles to governing the country, which he renamed "the Democratic Republic of Congo" (DRC). Beyond political jostling among various groups to gain power and an enormous external debt, his foreign backers proved unwilling to leave when asked. The conspicuous Rwandan presence in the capital also rankled many Congolese, who were beginning to see Kabila as a pawn of foreign powers. Tensions reached new heights on 14 July 1998, when Kabila dismissed his Rwandan chief of staff, James Kabarebe, and replaced him with a native Congolese, Celestin Kifwa. Although the move chilled what was already a troubled relationship with Rwanda, Kabila softened the blow by making Kabarebe the military advisor to his successor. Two weeks later Kabila abandoned such diplomatic steps. He thanked Rwanda for its help and ordered all Rwandan and Ugandan military forces to leave the country. Within 24 hours Rwandan military advisors living in Kinshasa were unceremoniously flown out. The people most alarmed by this order were the Banyamulenge of eastern Congo. Their tensions with neighboring ethnic groups had been a contributing factor in the genesis of the First Congo War and they were also used by Rwanda to affect events across the border in the DRC. [edit] 1998–1999
The initial rebel offensive threatened the Kabila government in a matter of weeks. The government was only saved through the quick intervention of a number of other African states. As rebel forces were pushed back, it appeared for a time that an escalation in the conflict to a conventional war among multiple national armies loomed. Such an outcome was avoided as battle lines stabilized in 1999. After that, the conflict was fought for much of the time by irregular proxy forces with little change in the territories held by the various parties. On 2 August 1998 the Banyamulenge in the town of Goma erupted into mutiny. Rwanda offered immediate assistance to the Banyamulenge and early in August a well-armed rebel group, the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD)--composed primarily of Banyamulenge and backed by Rwanda and Uganda--had emerged. This group quickly came to dominate the resource-rich eastern provinces and based its operations in Goma. The RCD quickly took control of the towns of Bukavu and Uvira in the Kivus. The Tutsi-led Rwandan government allied with Uganda, and Burundi also retaliated, occupying a portion of northeastern Congo. To help remove the occupying Rwandans, President Kabila enlisted the aid of refugee Hutus in eastern Congo and began to agitate public opinion against the Tutsis, resulting in several public lynchings in the streets of Kinshasa. On 12 August a loyalist army major broadcast a message urging resistance from a radio station in Bunia in eastern Congo: "People must bring a machete, a spear, an arrow, a hoe, spades, rakes, nails, truncheons, electric irons, barbed wire, stones, and the like, in order, dear listeners, to kill the Rwandan Tutsis."[12] The Rwandan government also claimed a substantial part of eastern Congo as "historically Rwandan". The Rwandans alleged that Kabila was organizing a genocide against their Tutsi brethren in the Kivu region. The degree to which Rwandan intervention was motivated by a desire to protect the Banyamulenge, as opposed to using them as a smokescreen for its own regional aspirations, remains in question.[citation needed] In a bold move, Rwandan soldiers under the command of James Kabarebe hijacked three planes and flew them to the government base of Kitona on the Atlantic coast.[13] The planes landed in the middle of the Kitona base, but the motley collection of troops there (ex-FAZ, but also Angolan UNITA elements and former Lissouba militiamen from Brazzaville) were in poor condition and in no condition to fight unless given food and weapons.[14] They were quickly won over to the Rwandan side. More towns in the east and around Kitona fell in rapid succession as the combined RCD, Rwandan and rebel soldiers overwhelmed government forces amid a flurry of ineffectual diplomatic efforts by various African nations. By 13 August, less than two weeks after the revolt began, rebels held the Inga hydroelectric station that provided power to Kinshasa as well as the port of Matadi through which most of Kinshasa's food passed. The diamond center of Kisangani fell into rebel hands on 23 August and forces advancing from the east had begun to threaten Kinshasa by late August. Uganda, while retaining joint support of the RCD with Rwanda, also created a rebel group that it supported exclusively, the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC). Despite the movement of the front lines, fighting continued throughout the country. Even as rebel forces advanced on Kinshasa, government forces continued to battle for control of towns in the east of the country. The Hutu militants with whom Kabila was cooperating were also a significant force in the east. Nevertheless, the fall of the capital and Kabila, who had spent the previous weeks desperately seeking support from various African nations and Cuba, seemed increasingly certain. The rebel offensive was abruptly reversed as Kabila's diplomatic efforts bore fruit. The first African countries to respond to Kabila's request for help were fellow members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). While officially the SADC members are bound to a mutual defense treaty in the case of outside aggression, many member nations took a neutral stance to the conflict. However, the governments of Namibia, Zimbabwe and Angola supported the Kabila government after a meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 19 August. Several more nations joined the conflict for Kabila in the following weeks: Chad, Libya and Sudan. A multisided war thus began. In September 1998 Zimbabwean forces flown into Kinshasa held off a rebel advance that reached the outskirts of the capital, while Angolan units attacked northward from its borders and eastward from the Angolan territory of Cabinda, against the besieging rebel forces. This intervention by various nations saved the Kabila government and pushed the rebel front lines away from the capital. However, it was unable to defeat the rebel forces, and the advance threatened to escalate into direct conflict with the national armies of Uganda and Rwanda that formed part of the rebel movement. In November 1998 a new Ugandan-backed rebel group, the Movement for the Liberation of Congo, was reported in the north of the country. On 6 November Rwandan President Paul Kagame admitted for the first time that Rwandan forces were assisting the RCD rebels for security reasons, apparently after a request by Nelson Mandela to advance peace talks. On January 18, 1999, Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe agreed on a ceasefire at a summit at Windhoek, Namibia but the RCD was not invited. Fighting thus continued. Outside of Africa, most states remained neutral, but urged an end to the violence. [edit] Foreign supporters of the Congo government Black - Democratic Republic of the Congo Green - anti-DRC coalition Dark blue - pro-DRC coalition Light blue - DRC allies, not directly involved in the war. [edit] Zimbabwe
The Zimbabwean government sent troops to assist Kabila in 1998.[15] President Robert Mugabe was the most ardent supporter of intervention on Kabila's behalf. Zimbabwe was the only country involved in the conflict with a modern and experienced air force. It and the Zimbabwe National Army special forces--which included the Zim Commandos and Paras as well as the Special Air Service--all played a crucial role in securing Kinshasa as well as repulsing rebel troops who had reached the outskirts of the capital. Zimbabwean warplanes played a major role in the destruction of enemy columns that were about to enter the capital. It was also Zimbabwean troops who recaptured the Inga dam intact from the rebel forces occupying it, resulting in the restoration of electricity in the capital. [edit] AngolaThe Angolan government had fought against Mobutu Sésé Seko in the First Congo War because of his support for rebel UNITA in the Angolan Civil War.[16] The Angolan government wanted to eliminate UNITA operations in southern Congo, which exchanged diamonds extracted from rebel-held Angola for foreign weapons. Angola had no confidence that a new president would be more effective than Kabila and feared that continued fighting would lead to a power vacuum that could only help UNITA. The intervention of the experienced Angolan forces was essential in deciding the outcome of both wars. [edit] NamibiaPresident Sam Nujoma had interests in Congo similar to that of Mugabe, with several family members deeply involved in Congolese mining. Namibia itself had few issues of national interest at stake in the war and the Namibian intervention was greeted with dismay and outrage by citizens and opposition politicians. [edit] ChadKabila had originally discounted the possibility of support from Francophone Africa but after a summit meeting in Libreville, Gabon, on 24 September, Chad agreed to send 2000 troops. France had encouraged Chad to join as a means of regaining influence in a region where the French had retreated after the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Nevertheless, Chadian intervention resulted in a real fiasco. Its forces were accused of serious human rights violations and looting virtually from their arrival in the country. They withdrew very quickly under international and national pressure and shame.[17] [edit] SudanUnconfirmed reports in September indicated that forces of the government of Sudan were fighting rebels in Orientale Province, close to the Sudanese and Ugandan borders. However, Sudan did not establish a significant military presence inside the DRC, though it continued to offer extensive support to three Ugandan rebel groups—the Lord's Resistance Army, the Uganda National Rescue Front II and the Allied Democratic Forces—in retaliation for Ugandan support for the Sudan People's Liberation Army.[18] [edit] 1999–2000
Main article: Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement  . On 5 April 1999 tensions within the RCD about the dominance of the Banyamulenge reached a boiling point when RCD leader Ernest Wamba dia Wamba moved his base from Goma to Uganda-controlled Kisangani to head a breakaway faction named Forces for Renewal. A further sign of a break occurred when President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Kabila signed a ceasefire accord on 18 April in Sirte, Libya, following the mediation of Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, but both the RCD and Rwanda refused to take part. On 16 May Wamba was ousted as head of the RCD in favor of a pro-Rwanda figure. Seven days later the various factions of the RCD clashed over control of Kisangani. On 8 June rebel factions met to try to create a common front against Kabila. Despite these efforts, the creation by Uganda of the new province of Ituri sparked the ethnic clash of the Ituri conflict, sometimes referred to as a "war within a war". Nevertheless, diplomatic circumstances contributed to the first ceasefire of the war. In July 1999 the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed by the six warring countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Uganda) and, on 1 August, the MLC (the RCD refused to sign_. Under terms of the agreement forces from all sides, under a Joint Military Commission, would cooperate in tracking, disarming and documenting all armed groups in the Congo, especially those forces identified with the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Few provisions, however, were made to actually disarm the militias. The United Nations Security Council deployed about 90 liaison personnel in August 1999 to support the ceasefire. However, in the following months all sides accused the others of repeatedly breaking the cease-fire, and it became clear that small incidents could trigger attacks. The tension between Uganda and Rwanda reached a breaking point in early August as units of the Uganda People's Defense Force and the Rwandan Patriotic Army clashed in Kisangani. In November government-controlled television in Kinshasa claimed that Kabila's army had been rebuilt and was now prepared to fulfill its "mission to liberate" the country. Rwandan-supported rebel forces launched a major offensive and approached Kinshasa but were eventually repelled. By February 24, 2000, the UN authorized a force of 5,537 troops, the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (known by the French acronym, MONUC), to monitor the cease-fire. However, fighting continued between rebels and government forces and between Rwandan and Ugandan forces. Numerous clashes and offensives occurred throughout the country, most notably heavy fighting between Uganda and Rwanda in Kisangani in May and June of 2000. On 9 August 2000 a government offensive in Equateur Province was stopped along the Ubangui River near Libenge by MLC forces. Military operations and diplomatic efforts made by the UN, African Union and Southern African Development Community failed to make any headway.[citation needed] [edit] 2001
 A bodyguard shot and wounded Laurent Kabila in an assassination attempt on 16 January 2001 in the presidential palace in Kinshasa. Two days later state television announced that Kabila had died from his injuries.[19] It is unknown who ordered the killing but most[who?] feel Kabila's allies were to blame as they were tired of his duplicity, in particular his failure to implement a detailed timetable for the introduction of a new democratic constitution leading to free and fair elections.[citation needed] Angolan troops were highly visible at Kabila's funeral cortege in Kinshasa.[citation needed] By unanimous vote of the Congolese parliament, his son, Joseph Kabila, was sworn in as president to replace him. This was largely as a result of Robert Mugabe's backing and the fact that most parliamentarians had been handpicked by the elder Kabila[citation needed]. In February, the new president met Rwandan President Paul Kagame in the United States. Rwanda, Uganda, and the rebels agreed to a UN pullout plan. Uganda and Rwanda began pulling troops back from the front line. The Washington Post favorably contrasted Joseph Kabila—Western educated and English-speaking—with his father. Here was someone who made diplomats "hope that things have changed", whereas "Laurent Kabila stood as the major impediment to a peaceful settlement of the war launched in August 1998 to unseat him." The Lusaka peace deal "remained unfulfilled largely because he kept staging new offensives while blocking deployment of UN peacekeepers in government-held territory." An analyst from the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit is quoted saying "The only obstruction had been Kabila because the [Lusaka] accord called for the government's democratic transition and that was a threat to his power." In April 2001 a UN panel of experts investigated the illegal exploitation of diamonds, cobalt, coltan, gold and other lucrative resources in the Congo. The report accused Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe of systematically exploiting Congolese resources and recommended the Security Council impose sanctions.[20] [edit] 2002
In 2002 Rwanda's situation began to worsen. Many members of the RCD either gave up fighting or decided to join Kabila's government. Moreover, the Banyamulenge, the backbone of Rwanda's militia forces, became increasingly tired of control from Kigali and the unending conflict. A number of them mutinied, leading to violent clashes between them and Rwandan forces. At the same time the western Congo was becoming increasingly secure under the younger Kabila. International aid was resumed as inflation was brought under control. The Sun City Agreement was formalized on 19 April 2002. It was a framework for providing the Congo with a unified, multipartite government and democratic elections; however, critics noted that there were no stipulations regarding the unification of the army, which weakened the effectiveness of the agreement. There have been several reported breaches of the Sun City agreement, but it has seen a reduction in the fighting.[citation needed] On 30 July 2002 Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a peace deal known as the Pretoria Accord after five days of talks in Pretoria, South Africa. The talks centered on two issues. One was the withdrawal of the estimated 20,000 Rwandan soldiers in the Congo. The other was the rounding up of the ex-Rwandan soldiers and the dismantling of the Hutu militia known as Interahamwe, which took part in Rwanda's 1994 genocide and continues to operate out of eastern Congo. Rwanda had previously refused to withdraw until the Hutu militias were dealt with. Signed on 6 September, the Luanda Agreement formalized peace between Congo and Uganda. The treaty aimed to get Uganda to withdraw their troops from Bunia and to improve the relationship between the two countries, but implementation proved troublesome. Eleven days later the first Rwandan soldiers were withdrawn from the eastern DRC. On 5 October Rwanda announced the completion of its withdrawal; MONUC confirmed the departure of over 20,000 Rwandan soldiers. On 21 October the UN published its Expert Panel's Report of the pillage of natural resources by armed groups. Both Rwanda and Uganda rejected accusations that senior political and military figures were involved in illicit trafficking of plundered resources.[citation needed] Zimbabwe Defense Minister Sydney Sekeramayi says the Zimbabwean military withdrew from the DRC in October 2002, but in June 2006 reporters said a 50-man force had stayed in the DRC to protect Kabila.[15] On 17 December 2002 the Congolese parties of the Inter Congolese Dialogue, namely: the national government, the MLC, the RCD, the RCD-ML, the RCD-N, the domestic political opposition, representatives of civil society and the Mai Mai, signed the Global and All-Inclusive Agreement. The Agreement described a plan for transitional governance that would have result in legislative and presidential election within two years of its signing and marked the formal end of the Second Congo War. [edit] 2003 onwards: Transitional GovernmentOn 18 July 2003, the Transitional Government came into being as specified in the Global and All-Inclusive Agreement out of the warring parties. The Agreement obliges the parties to carry out a plan to reunify the country, disarm and integrate the warring parties and hold elections. There have been numerous problems, resulting in continued instability in much of the country and a delay in the scheduled national elections from June 2005 to July 2006. The main cause for the continued weakness of the Transitional Government is the refusal by the former warring parties to give up power to a centralized and neutral national administration. Some belligerents maintained administrative and military command-and-control structures separate from that of the Transitional Government, but as the International Crisis Group has reported, these have gradually been reduced. A high level of official corruption siphoning money away from civil servants, soldiers and infrastructure projects causes further instability. On 30 July 2006 the first elections were held in the DRC after the populace approved a new constitution. A second round was held on 30 October. [edit] Aftermath and legacy
[edit] Areas of continuing conflictThe fragility of the state has allowed continued violence and human rights abuses in the east. There are three significant centers of conflict:
The ethnic violence between Hutu- and Tutsi-aligned forces has been a driving impetus for much of the conflict, with people on both sides fearing their annihilation as a race. The Kinshasa- and Hutu-aligned forces enjoyed close relations as their interests in expelling the armies and proxy forces of Uganda and Rwanda dovetail. While the Uganda- and Rwanda-aligned forces worked closely together to gain territory at the expense of Kinshasa, competition over access to resources created a fissure in their relationship. There were reports that Uganda permitted Kinshasa to send arms to the Hutu FDLR via territory held by Uganda-backed rebels as Uganda, Kinshasa and the Hutus are all seeking, in varying degrees, to check the influence of Rwanda and its affiliates. [edit] Rwanda's border securityRwanda wanted the DR Congo to stamp out the FDLR operating from its territory and has offered to send troops to help. The Kinshasa government was suspicious of Kigali's influence over the region and its forces seem unable to deal with the FDLR. Consequently Rwanda supports the continuing rebellion of General Nkunda. Final resolution will only happen when Rwanda feels its border is no longer threatened by Hutu rebels, and can stop supporting Nkunda: the two issues go hand in hand.[21] On 19 December 2005 the United Nations International Court of Justice ruled that the DRC's sovereignty had been violated by Uganda, and that DRC had lost billions of dollars worth of resources. The DRC government has asked for $10 billion in compensation. Breaking from its own history of support to the Paul Kagame regime of Rwanda, US joined other Western nations to cut off military aid to Kigali. This move comes following a United Nations report that showed Rwanda's involvement in rebel-led violence in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). According to the report and other human rights organisations, there is material evidence of Rwanda "providing fighters and military equipment to rebels in the eastern DRC where 18 years of conflict have cost the lives of several million people." [22] [edit] Continuing death tollEven though the war may have officially ended years ago, people in the Congo are still dying at a rate of an estimated 45,000 per month; 2,700,000 people have died since 2004. This death toll is due to widespread disease and famine; reports indicate that almost half of the individuals killed are children under the age of 5. This death rate has been prevalent since sincere efforts at rebuilding the nation began in 2004.[23] Efforts are hampered by factors such as the Kivu conflict, which may be, and often is, considered a continuation of the Second Congo War. Motivations of the 2009 Eastern Congo offensive are also entangled in the ongoing conflicts of the DRC. The death toll of violent military, militants, and insurgent actions have been estimated at over 1,000 in 2009 alone. The Human Security Report Project of Simon Fraser University has contested the toll of 5.4 million war-related deaths between 1998 and 2008. It states that the widely cited study by the International Rescue Committee chose representative samples that underestimated the baseline mortality, and thus overestimated the excess, war-related mortality. The Human Security Project states that the IRC figure of 2.83 million excess deaths between May 2001 and April 2007 should be revised to 0.86 million.[24] In response to the criticism, one of the authors of the IRC report acknowledged there were some statistical issues with the original study but stated that the report had been widely reviewed and judged to be a fair estimate of the number killed.[25] [edit] See also
[edit] References
[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Africa's internal trade (intra-Africa trade) has consistently remained minimal compared with its intercontinental trade. The pattern of African exports continues to be heavily influenced by historical links with the rest of the world as more than 80 per cent of African countries' exports are still destined for markets outside the continent. RECs have fostered trade development through programmes aimed at achieving a free-trade area, a customs union, and a common market. However, numerous initiatives and decades of experimentation with integration in Africa have not brought about any significant levels in intra-REC and intra-African trade.
Jobs in Africa - www.wejobs.blogspot.com
International Jobs - www.jobsunited.blogspot.com
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wanabidii" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment