IWPR Home institute for war & peace reporting
   
 Advanced Search
building peace and democracy through free and fair media

Home
Programmes
Afghanistan
Afghan Recovery Report
Africa
Zimbabwe Crisis Reports
Caucasus
Caucasus Reporting Service
Cross Caucasus Network
Central Asia
Reporting Central Asia
News Briefing Central Asia
Human Rights Reporting
Central Asia Radio
International Justice
ICC - Africa Update
ICTY - Tribunal Update
Face à la Justice - RD Congo
Facing Justice - Uganda
On the Scale - Darfur
Iran
Mianeh Reports
Iraq
Iraqi Crisis Report
Pakistan
Open Minds
Philippines
Human Rights Reporting
Syria
Syria News Briefing
Multimedia
Resources
Books
Training
IWPR Comment
Kurt Schork Awards
Photo Galleries
Sahar Fund
Past Programmes
Past Publications
CIJ Trial Reports Archive
Links
RSS Feeds
Other IWPR sites
Academy
Mianeh
Open Minds Pakistan
Regional Media Network
Rights Reporting
IWPR on acebook
witter
 



ICC - Africa Update
International Justice / ICC home
Democratic Republic of Congo

Comment: Countering the FDLR

French

Political dialogue increasingly seems the only way of resolving the problem of Rwandan militias in eastern Congo.

By Eugène Bakama Bope (AR No. 165, 08-Apr-08)

A United Nations Security Council resolution demanding the disarmament of all Rwandan armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the latest in a long line of declarations, accords and agreements intended to bring peace to the troubled eastern region.

Resolution 1804 follows on from a November 2007 deal signed in Nairobi between the DRC and Rwanda in which both countries promised to put an end to the presence of foreign armed groups in eastern Congo, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, the FDLR.

Several thousand FDLR remain in Congo – many of whom fled Rwanda following the 1994 genocide. These Rwandan militia are accused of having participated in the killings and they continue to commit serious crimes in the east of the DRC. Not surprisingly, their presence along with other illegal Rwandan armed groups like the Rastas and the ex-FAR/Interahamwe have had a destabilising influence over security in the east of the Congo since they arrived.

The adoption of the March 13 resolution shows that the Security Council also agrees that these forces constitute a real danger and a threat to peace and stability, not only in DRC but also the entire Great Lakes region.

In addition to laying down arms, the resolution calls on the FDLR and other Rwandan fighters to “ immediately stop recruiting and using children, release all children associated with them and halt gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse”, stressing that those responsible for these crimes must be brought to justice.

But why does resolution 1804 not also concern Laurent Nkunda’s troops? This is regrettable since the FDLR issue must also be addressed in the context of the Goma peace process that was supposed to lead to the disarmament of all armed groups operating in the DRC. It is illogical to separate these two processes. This resolution 1804 must also concern Congolese armed groups operating in the east, including Nkunda’s men.

The Security Council says it is willing to take targeted sanctions against the FDLR’s leaders, particularly against those who continue to block the disarmament and demobilisation of their troops. Such sanctions concern the freezing of assets and a travel ban, but these sanctions will obviously not affect the harming capacity of the armed groups.

For their part, the FDLR insist they are not the cause of the continuing insecurity in the region and say they are willing to go back to Rwanda.

But they’ve said this before.

In a declaration made in Rome in March 2005, the FDLR said they would voluntarily disarm and to go back to Rwanda. FDLR civilian and military leaders announced in a public statement that they intended to cease the armed conflict, condemn the 1994 genocide and lay down their arms.

They also committed themselves to enter the disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, reinstallation and reintegration programme that would have seen them join the Rwandan army or go back to civilian life.

Congo was supposed to help in the disarmament process with the assistance of the United Nations Mission in Congo, MONUC.

In return, the FDLR asked the Rwandan government to give them an active role in political life. They also asked the Congolese government to establish a follow-up committee with which they would discuss the modalities of their disarmament and repatriation. This committee was never established and the Rome declaration did not lead to the disarmament or the return of the FDLR.

Neither did a Security Council resolution of November 8, 2001 suggesting that MONUC and the Congolese army disarm the foreign combatants. So resolution 1804 is not the first of its kind.

With forced disarmament having proved unsuccessful and the time well and truly gone to put an end to the presence of the FDLR and other Rwandan armed groups in the DRC, dialogue is the answer.

And the FDLR appear willing to talk. They won’t go back home under the current conditions and are requesting direct talks with the Rwandan government under the patronage of the international community.

One problem here is whether Rwanda wants them back. That’s where the biggest difficulty lies. But it should not constitute a problem for Congo. It rests with the international community to find a political solution to the FDLR situation, notably through political dialogue between the group and the Rwandan government.

Some say that the MONUC peacekeepers should convert into an offensive operation – to force the hand of the Rwandan armed groups operating in the Congo. But the powerlessness of MONUC and the disorganisation of the Congolese army are factors that will probably lead to the failure of any attempt of forced disarmament.

There is no military solution to the FDLR problem. As an illustration, the Rwandan armed forces failed to get rid of the FDLR during six years of military presence in the North and South Kivu provinces. That failure was down to their military strategy and also because it was hard to distinguish the FDLR from the displaced Rwandan civilian population.

If the FDLR refuse to voluntarily disarm, there is a risk of another war in the region with the return of the Rwandan army to Congolese territory.

A political solution should be given top priority in order to avoid renewed confrontations or fights.

The involvement of the Security Council in the search for peace in the Great Lakes region, notably in the east of the Congo, is welcome but Congo needs all of the international community including the European Union.

Foreign combatants operating in Congo must be identified, MONUC’s capacities must be improved and their mandate reinforced to allow them to better protect the civilian population. We must also think about the fate of the FDLR after their disarmament and repatriation and work for the end of fighting in the east.

Congo must not continuously suffer from the presence of these Rwandan armed groups on its territory.

Eugène Bakama Bope is the president of the Friends of the Law in the Congo.

Feedback Form
IWPR greatly appreciates your feedback. Please tick the boxes where appropriate:
After reading the article I am more informed on the subject matter
The article influenced my view on the ICC and/or international justice
I intend to use what I learned (in my work)
My work/education is in the field of:
IWPR may contact me to follow up
Your name (optional):
Your E-mail address (optional):



Subscribe
Past Reports
MonthIssue No.
Feb245-245
Jan241-244
MonthIssue No.
Dec238-240
Nov235-237
Oct232-234
Sep228-231
Aug225-227
Jul220-224
Jun216-219
Archive 10 09 08 07 06 05
Highlights
Facing Justice - UgandaFacing Justice - Uganda
On the Scale - DarfurOn the Scale - Darfur
iwpr newsNew Radio Show for Uganda
Vacancies Available
Project Review Oct/Nov 2009
Darfur Radio Show Launched
Kurt Schork Award Winners
Handbook for Sudanese Journalists
Covering War Crimes Courts
In the News
Winnipeg Free Press"Now [the Taleban] appear to be able to launch their attacks even in the most heavily protected sections of [Kabul], "said IWPR Afghan project editor/trainer Jean MacKenzie.
McClatchy"The simple fact is that the condition of the economy has never played a major role in the minds of Iranian leaders or in Iran's national security equation," said IWPR contributor Omid Memarian on the prospect of tougher western sanctions.
BBC“I would like to imagine that at least a few senior politicians woke up this week to seriously wonder what kind of monsters they and their system have created over the years," said IWPR's Head of Asia Alan Davis, referring to Maguindanao massacre.
The New York TimesRecent double bombing in Baghdad has cast doubt on the government's ability to guarantee security and prompted fears such violence may affect voter turnout in anticipated January elections, writes iWPR reporter Ali Karim.
Support
To support IWPR's work in Africa, contact Marcel Smits, or make an ONLINE DONATION >>.
IWPR thanks the following for their generous support:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of DenmarkMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark
Department for International Development , UKDepartment for International Development, UK
MacArthur FoundationMacArthur Foundation
Open Society InstituteOpen Society Institute (OSI)



© Institute for War & Peace Reporting
48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030    Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050

The opinions expressed in IWPR Online are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

Registered as a charity in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 1027201, company reg. no: 2744185)