DR Congo: America needs to keep up the pressure.

Kambale Musavuli opines at All Africa 

Congo-Kinshasa: Why President Obama Called Out Congo's Neighbors Without Mentioning Names?

President Barack Obama concluded his trip to Africa on Tuesday, July 2, 2013. After visiting Senegal and South Africa, President Obama's last stop on his African tour was in Tanzania where he visited President Jakaya Kikwete. Both President Obama and Kikwete have made auspicious statements regarding the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Last week, President Kikwete called on both Rwanda and Uganda to enter into dialogue with their respective rebel militia who are present in the Congo instead of continuously utilizing rebel presence as a rationale for repeated interventions in the Congo.

On Monday, July 1, 2013 during his state visit to Tanzania, responding to a question from a Congolese journalist, President Obama said "The countries surrounding the Congo, they've got to make a commitment to stop funding armed groups that are encroaching on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Congo."

President Obama's response is fascinating in two respects. First, in spite, of sixteen years of intervention in the DRC by U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda, which has triggered the deaths of millions of Congolese, President Obama still did not mention either country by name; he merely uttered the phrase "Congo's neighbors." Secondly, while the U.S. has repeatedly acknowledged that its allies, Rwanda and Uganda are funding armed groups in the Congo, it continues to arm, train, finance and provide diplomatic and political cover for both countries.

I don't disagree with Musavuli. I do however see the indirect naming of Rwanda and Uganda as a positive development. I think Obama was making it fairly clear that the United States is reassessing its position on the depredations of both countries in the DR Congo. Obama also said in response to the unnamed Congolese journalist.

" And so, we're prepared to work with anybody to try to make this happen.  Ultimately, though, the countries involved have to recognize it is in their self-interest to do so.  We can't force a solution onto the region.  The peoples of the region have to stand up and say that’s enough; it's time to move forward in a different way.  And, by the way, that means holding those who've committed gross human rights abuses accountable for what they've done."

That is, if one does not dismiss it as mere platitudes a new approach from the United States. Incidentally it is also time for the Congolese diaspora to start exercising political power and demand that their respective new states start to take an active interest in the the affairs of what will one day become  the continental power of Africa. Congolese population and resources alone.   

Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch says it best when he observed in a New York Times commentary: "So how do you get away with arming a rebel force that attacks U.N. peacekeepers, rapes women and recruits children? You need powerful friends, and Rwanda has had one. Born from the guilt of the Clinton administration's inaction in the face of the Rwandan genocide, and a recognition of Rwanda's relatively efficient use of development aid, the United States has proven to be one of Kigali's staunchest allies."

Actually as far as I am aware the clowns of M23 haven't attacked the MONUSCO forces, all the other charges are accurate though. There recently has been no need to attack the UN forces as they don't do anything.  

It would stand to reason that as the U.S. calls on its allies to cease funding of armed groups in the Congo, the U.S. itself would cease funding of Rwanda and Uganda as long as they continue fueling the conflict in the DRC. In fact, U.S. law calls on the Obama Administration to do as much.  Section 105 of Public Law 109-456, the law that President Obama sponsored as senator and co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold aid from Congo's neighbors, should they destabilize the country. The Obama Administration has yet to fully implement this law.

Again I think Obama is signaling thing are going to change.

Pressure has been mounting around Rwanda and Uganda's support of militia gangs in the Congo. In light of the two UN Group of experts reports published in 2012, the United States government has said that "there is a credible body of evidence that corroborates key findings of the Group of Experts' reports - including evidence of significant military and logistical support, as well as operational and political guidance, from the Rwandan government to the M23." The administration response to the report has been a suspension of $200,000 of Foreign Military Financing provided to a Rwandan military academy and a phone call from President Barack Obama to Paul Kagame to discuss Rwanda's role in the destabilization of the Congo. Unfortunately, these small steps have not been enough to stop Congo's neighbors from intervening in the Congo, nor are they commensurate with the level of suffering the people of the Congo face daily due to the brutal killings perpetrated by militia gangs.

One of the key changes needed in U.S. policy in the Great Lakes Region of Africa is to cease its support of U.S. allies who are fueling conflict in the DRC. As he did in his 2009 trip to Ghana, President Obama repeated again during his Cape Town speech that "we are interested in investing not in strongmen but in strong institutions."However, the US government's continued support of strongmen in Rwanda, Uganda and DRC, stands in stark contrast to President Obama's declaration in Cape Town.

A second key change required in US policy is for the U.S. to in fact support strong institutions and democracy both in the Congo and the region.  The lack of democracy and democratic institutions and the militarization of the political space in the region have been a major driver of the instability in the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda. These structural changes in U.S. Foreign Policy are vital steps needed to advancing peace and stability in the Congo and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

Despite the millions of Congolese who have perished in the past 16 years in what the United Nations says is the deadliest conflict in the world since World War II, the response from the United States in particular and other global leaders has been lackluster at best in the face of what is arguably the greatest human tragedy at the dawn of the 21st century. The recently initiated "Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Region,"is one such example; as it fails to hold Rwanda and Uganda accountable, lacks a serious justice component, did not include the Congolese people in its development and mistakenly argues that legitimizing Rwanda and Uganda's looting of the Congo under the guise of trade and economic integration will bring stability.

The degree to which action has been taken, to hold aggressor countries like Rwanda and Uganda accountable has been a result of global pressure on world leaders by ordinary people.  We have repeatedly seen the constructive role that global pressure can play in advancing peace in the Congo. Recently, the UN Group of Experts on the DRC leaked a report documenting reduced support for Rwandan and Ugandan militias in the Congo. This is a clear sign that the pressure on the U.S. and its allies Rwanda and Uganda needs to be sustained and stepped-up.

Not a bad assessment of the situation at all.

DR Congo: Obama signals policy change ?

The White House press release 

Remarks by President Obama and President Kikwete of Tanzania at Joint Press Conference

Q    My question to President Obama -- Mr. President, there has been no peace in Congo for almost 20 years now.  As a powerful nation in the world and a permanent member of the Security Council with a lot of influence to major players of the Congo conflict, how is the U.S. going to assist the DRC and Great Lakes to reach a permanent peace?  Thank you. 


"...a lot of influence to major players of the Congo conflict. " That is a very perceptive part of question and Obama didn't duck it. 

 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:   Well, the people of Congo need a chance.  They need a fair chance to live their lives, raise their families.  And they haven't had that opportunity because of constant conflict and war for way too many years.  And of course, the tragedy is compounded by the fact that Congo is so rich in natural resources and potential, but because of this constant conflict and instability, the people of Congo haven't benefited from that. 
 
I want to congratulate, again, President Kikwete and others who have helped to shape a peace framework.  Because one of the things that I've said throughout this trip is, the United States doesn’t seek to impose solutions on Africa.  We want to work with Africans to find solutions to some of these ongoing security and regional problems.


All this is fairly standard stuff but the acknowledgement that the Congo is resource rich and that the people of the Congo have not benefited from the mineral wealth begs the question who has benefited ? 

 
And so, the fact that you now have a peace framework that the various parties have signed onto is critical.  But it can't just be a piece of paper; there has to be follow-through.  And so, one of the things that I discussed with President Kikwete is how we can encourage all the parties concerned to follow through on commitments that they've made in order to bring about a lasting solution inside of Congo.  That means, for example, that President Kabila inside of Congo, he has to do more and better when it comes to dealing with the DRC's capacity on security issues and delivery of services.  And that’s very important, because if there's a continuing vacuum there, then that vacuum sometimes gets filled by actors that don’t have the best interests of Congo at heart.  And we're prepared to work the United Nations and regional organizations and others to help him build capacity.

 
That is a accurate way to describe the failings of FARDC and the ongoing security issues in the Eastern DR Congo.
"...then that vacuum sometimes gets filled by actors that don’t have the best interests of Congo at heart." 
One gets the feeling Susan Rice is about to have a bad day.  


The countries surrounding the Congo, they've got to make commitments to stop funding armed groups that are encroaching on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Congo.  And they've signed onto a piece of paper now, now the question is do they follow through. 


Wow. Did I read that right.  Hope that Rwanda are paying attention. Susan Rice is going to find it difficult to run cover for you now.

 
And so, we're prepared to work with anybody to try to make this happen.  Ultimately, though, the countries involved have to recognize it is in their self-interest to do so.  We can't force a solution onto the region.  The peoples of the region have to stand up and say that’s enough; it's time to move forward in a different way.  And, by the way, that means holding those who've committed gross human rights abuses accountable for what they've done.


The list of human rights violators is not a short one.

 
But there's an opportunity for peace here.  And the countries surrounding the Congo should recognize that if the Congo stabilizes, that will improve the prospects for their growth and their prosperity, because right now, it's as if you have a millstone around your neck.  If you have one of the biggest countries in terms of geography in all of Africa with all these natural resources, but it's constantly a problem as opposed to being part of the solution, everybody suffers. 
 
Tanzania should be doing more trade with the DRC.  Rwanda should be doing more trade and commerce with the DRC.  One of the things we're talking about it how do we get more inter-Africa trade, because if countries like Tanzania are going to improve their economic position in the globe, the first thing they have to do is to make sure they can trade with each other more effectively. 

It is hard to know how to interpret these statements. The absence of an acknowledgement of western neocolonialism is a bit of an oversight. 
 
Right now, in Africa -- this is true not just in Tanzania, but in Kenya and Uganda and other places -- it's easier to send flowers or coffee to Europe than it is to send it across the way.  And that means that fewer businesses are getting started and fewer jobs are being created.
 
So we want to work with the existing international structures like the United Nations, and we're supportive of the brigade that’s been shaped and in which Tanzania is making a contribution.  But ultimately, it's going to be the African countries themselves that have to follow up on the commitments that they've already made. 

All in all not a bad answer to the question.

Hat Tip Clemence Umutesi Barati on Facebook