International
The UN aims to fail in the DRC. Here is why
The
United Nations experts and peacekeeping mission staff, who have been operating
in the country for over two decades, have been keen on blaming their failure to
show value for money on factors seemingly beyond their control.
Since
the resumption of armed hostilities between the government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the M23 in late 2021, the United Nations
experts and peacekeeping mission staff, who have been operating in the country
for over two decades, have been keen on blaming their failure to show value for
money on factors seemingly beyond their control. The June 2023 report of the
Group of Experts on the DRC is in line with this aim of shifting blame for this
failure on everyone else except their own contribution to the recurring
violence; that is, their failure to identify and address the root causes of the
conflict. More specifically, some of the report’s allegations, analyses, and
conclusions expose the experts’ biases against Rwanda and the M23; the
allegations also help to explain why after 70 UN peacekeeping operations since
1948 in the DRC there is still no sustainable solution to some of the least
complicated aspects of Congo’s unending crises.
An upside-down reading of
Congo’s crisis
One
recurrent and problematic aspect of the UN group of experts’ report is that it
presents an upside-down view of the causes and effects of the crisis – whether
between Rwanda and the DRC on the one hand, or between the DRC government and
the M23 on the other hand.
For
instance, the UN experts write that “tensions [between Rwanda and the DRC] were
heightened when, on 24 January 2023, RDF shot at a Sukhoi (SU-25) fighter jet
belonging to FARDC over Goma.” This misleading
presentation plays into Kinshasa’s narrative purporting that the DRC is facing
aggression from Rwanda, which is demonstrably false.
In
fact, tensions between the two countries rose way back in May 2022, when, in
violation of Rwanda’s territorial integrity, the Congolese
armed forces (FARDC) shelled Rwandan territory in Kinigi and
Nyange Sectors in Musanze District, injuring several civilians – a clear act of
terror for which the Rwandan government immediately requested an investigation
by the Expanded Joint Verification Mechanism (EJVM). A few weeks later, the
Rwandan Ministry of Defence reported that
the FARDC had “fired rockets into Rwanda from the Bunagana
area, striking along the common border in Nyabigoma Cell, Kinigi Sector,
Musanze District on 10 June 2022”. Both incidents of aggression, which are
nowhere to be found in the experts’ report, were perceived in Rwanda as
attempts to disrupt the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which, at the
time, was to take place a few days later from 20-25 June 2022 in Kigali.
It’s,
however, revealing that the UN experts reported the shooting of Congo’s Sukhoi
(SU-25) by Rwanda Defense Force (RDF) in January 2023; they did so without
providing the context that led to Kigali’s reaction: the fact that Congolese
fighter jets had violated Rwanda’s airspace on two prior occasions, first in November 2022 and
subsequently in December 2022,
with the Congolese government pleading guilty for at least one of these
violations. The report deliberately omits these incidents involving aggression
against Rwanda as well as Kinshasa’s admission of wrongdoing, thus making it
impossible for the uninformed reader to assess whether Rwanda’s actions are the
causes of, or responses to, Kinshasa’s hostile attitude.
Shielding Kinshasa from
scrutiny
The
UN experts’ omissions, which are too many to mention, beg the question: How are
Africans, and others of goodwill for that matter, supposed to trust UN reports
that discard facts that are inconvenient to Kinshasa’s narrative while
shielding from accountability a government that has repeatedly threatened to
expel the UN mission? Are UN experts seeking the truth or are they protecting
their livelihoods?
One
could argue that the fact that these experts also accuse the FARDC of
collaborating with the FRDL is evidence that they are not biased. But one would
be wrong, and here is why.
First,
the UN experts are careful to highlight the fact that “in May 2022, President,
Tshisekedi, called upon the military hierarchy to refrain from using proxies in
the fight against M23.” However, they are quick to qualify their accusation
that “the engagement of armed groups –crucial for constraining M23 advances –
was organized, coordinated and supported by senior FARDC officers.” In other
words, where context is removed from accusations against Kigali, those against
Kinshasa are unduly qualified. In so doing, the UN experts ensure two things.
One,
whatever FADRC officers are doing cannot be blamed on the commander-in-chief.
These are supposedly ‘rogue’ actors acting against Tshisekedi’s
orders. This effort to shift accountability is ridiculous considering that
President Tshisekedi has also called for regime change
in Rwanda and vowed to support forces hell-bent on
destabilizing Congo’s neighbour, a fact which appears nowhere in the experts’
report.
Two,
the actions of these ‘rogue’ FARDC officers are justified since, as the experts
state, “the engagement of armed groups,” which includes FRDL, was “crucial for
constraining M23 advances.” Clearly, for the UN experts, the M23 is a greater
threat to peace in the Great Lakes region than the FDLR since FARDC officers
had no other choice but to use a genocidal outfit to counter the M23. In fact,
the UN experts go to great lengths to sanitize FDLR as a self-defence militia
by giving credence to FDLR claims that “they had fought alongside FARDC and
local armed groups to defend their positions and dependents from M23 attacks”.
Indeed, the experts suggest that the FDLR defends the population against
Rwandan troops and the M23 rebels by affirming that “FDLR withdrew from several
positions, exposing the population to reprisal attacks”.
Responsibility for hate speech
Secondly,
and relatedly, the UN experts double down on their upside-down view of the
causes and effects of the crisis in the DRC by blaming the current hate speech
and xenophobia (targeting Rwandophone Congolese at large and the Congolese
Tutsi communities in particular) on M23’s territorial expansion. In efforts to
blame the victims, the experts are seemingly on a goose chase to demonstrate
this: “Incidents of violence, including the killing of Tutsi civilians, had
coincided with the resurgence of M23.” Crucially, by presenting those who now
promote hate speech in DRC – namely government officials, politicians, and
civil society actors – as brainless chickens incapable of foreseeing the
consequences of their actions and merely reacting to M23’s expansion, the
experts shamelessly validate the same rhetoric that justified the 1994 Tutsi
genocide in Rwanda; that it was a consequence of the RPF military campaign.
For
one thing, the hate speech that depicts Rwandaphone Congolese as aliens in the
DRC and the related killings targeting these communities date at least as far
back as 1965, as evidenced by confidential
notes of the US State Department on the matter. Both former
Tanzania’s President
Julius Nyerere and former South Africa’s President
Thabo Mbeki have on different occasions identified these
attempts to ethnically cleanse or exterminate Rwandophone communities as one of
the root causes of violence and instability in the eastern DRC. In other words,
this is not something invented by the Rwandan government or the M23, as the UN
experts claim when they accuse the two of “instrumentalizing [the] genocide
narrative.” The ethnic rhetoric is as old as Congo itself!
For
another, if the international community is genuine in its declared intention to
assist the East African region to bring peace to the DRC, it is paramount that
it rejects the UN experts’ submission that the hate speech and killings
targeting these communities are a consequence of M23’s expansion rather than
the result of a deliberate government policy. There is no justifiable reason
for the reluctance of the UN experts to apportion blame where it rightly
belongs.
Furthermore,
unless one defends the idea that denouncing and fighting racism is the cause of
racist attacks, we all ought to reject the UN experts’ silly suggestion that
denouncing genocidal rhetoric and violence in DRC, as the Rwandan government
and the M23 consistently do, has “created a dangerously fertile ground for the
fearmongering, hateful discourse and violent reprisals, including killings,
against the [Congolese Tutsi communities] by those who opposed M23.” In fact,
if the UN experts were coherent, they would have equally denounced Alice
Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who in November
2022 dared to
raise an alarm on the condition of Banyamulenge communities, stating that “The
current violence [in the DRC] is a warning sign of societal fragility and proof
of the enduring presence of the conditions that allowed large-scale hatred and
violence to erupt into a genocide in the past.” Going by the experts’
reasoning, by denouncing what everyone sees clearly, Alice Wairimu has also
created “a fertile ground” for genocidal violence!
Vilifying Rwanda and the M23
Even
as they absolve the Congolese government of all responsibility for the current
crisis and sanitize FDLR on the one hand, the UN experts appear determined to
vilify the Rwandan government and the M23 on the other. They do this in various
ways.
One,
they suggest that one of the objectives of Rwanda is to “use [M23] to secure
control over mine sites”. Interestingly, they are quick to admit that Rwanda
has not achieved this objective. Instead, the experts note that “Mining police
in Rubaya town were tolerant of [pro-government militias] incursions into the
mining sites, as they considered them to be FARDC allies in the fight against
M23” and that “in recent months, those [militias] had consolidated control over
Rubaya mine sites and their relationships with the smuggling networks.” The
plot thickens when the UN experts allege further that “several sources reported
that the minerals were being smuggled towards Rwanda.” In other words,
according to UN experts, pro-Kinshasa militias who control Congolese mines in
Rubaya are smuggling their loot through Rwanda, thereby fulfilling the
objective allegedly pursued by the RDF-M23 alliance. How preposterous is this?
Two,
the experts also accuse M23 of conducting “ceremonial withdrawals” and
“symbolic handover” of territories in contravention of the East African
Community timetable. These so called experts act as if the same community had
not determined that this withdrawal would be accompanied
by a political process as part of the recommendations of the
emergency summit of EAC heads of state held in Bujumbura in February 2023. The
experts stubbornly refrain from blaming Kinshasa for its refusal to commit to
peace talks so that the cantonment of M23 can be expedited, a posture at odds
with the AU mediator and the Angolan President’s assessment that
M23 complies with the region’s recommendations and that the Congolese
government has to play its part.
What to make of this report?
However
misleading, the UN group of experts report is not completely useless. It
provides useful indications once one is able to separate the wheat from the
chaff. On the issue of Rwanda and the DRC, for instance, a careful reading of
the report with regard to the alleged military operations conducted by the RDF
indicates that Rwandan troops have not sought direct confrontation with the
FARDC, but instead have stubbornly focused on FDLR strongholds and positions.
This means that even if one were to take the UN experts’ allegations on
Rwanda’s direct military interventions at face value, it is clear that Rwanda
does not seek military confrontation with the DRC but rather addresses a
legitimate security threat.
Moreover,
if the UN experts were not as determined to further Kinshasa’s narrative and to
justify their continued presence in Congo, they would have extended their
understanding of the legitimacy of Uganda’s interventions against ADF – which
they praise as having “led to a relative lull in ADF activities” – to Rwanda’s
alleged interventions against the FDLR, which poses an even greater threat to a
society against which it has previously committed genocide.
At
any rate, the East African Heads of State must heed their defence chiefs’ call to
conduct military actions against the FDLR as a means of diffusing tensions
between Kinshasa and Kigali. This is a straightforward recommendation that the
UN experts would make if they didn’t conduct investigations with a
pre-determined conclusion in mind.
The
M23 issue is also straightforward. As President Ruto rightly pointed out recently,
the East African regional force has achieved in a few months what the UN has
failed to do in almost three decades. Current attempts by UN staff to downplay
its achievements are only desperate moves to preserve Monusco’s relevance by
sabotaging regional efforts and preempting important summits even as UN
officials refuse to be held accountable for their repeated failures in the DRC
– the last kicks of a dying horse, if you will.
For
the region’s efforts to be successful, however, the EAC leaders will have to
take a radically different approach and urge Kinshasa to engage in a political
process that will address M23 grievances without further delay. This is the
surest and least bloody path to peace which will compel M23 rebels into
completing their withdrawal. Failure to do this will undoubtedly play into
Kinshasa’s cynical
political calculus in the context of upcoming elections, derail the
ongoing process and reverse the gains achieved so far.
Indeed,
African leaders ought to resist these foreign
attempts to shape narratives around – and prescribe failed
solutions for – our problems. Moreover, they ought to keep in mind that “part of the problem facing
Africa is that the agency to articulate the trials and tribulations of Africans
has for long been usurped by foreigners. Until Africans, who are primarily
faced with the consequences of the thinking around governance, take control and
relegate foreigners to subordinate roles, the clarity we seek to confront our challenges
will continue to elude us.”
Otherwise, it is as clear as day that the UN experts’ report is yet another tool in the arsenal for controlling Africans, especially those engaged in the stubborn pursuit of their dignity.
This article was first Published at The Pan African Review