On Tuesday, a rebel group of Congo known as M23 agreed to lay down its arms after much outside international pressure. This resulted in a major victory for the Congolese government. One of these outside pressures the New York Times article mentions is the use of offensive force by peacekeepers of the United Nations. When the rebels took over the provincial capital of Goma a year ago, the largest UN peacekeeping force suffered a major defeat by sitting there and watching this happen. Therefore, the peacekeepers thought of a new strategy to defeat the rebels. The UN Security Council gave the peacekeepers in Congo orders to go on the offensive and hunt down the rebels. Part of this strategy is brought on by the new philosophy of the UN intervention brigade. Martin Kobler, the Congo representative to the UN stated, “If there is no peace, there is nothing to keep.” One of the other pressures the rebels succumbed to was the decreased support from the neighboring country of Rwanda. The United States, EU and Britain suspended aid to Rwanda because of the country’s affiliation with the M23 rebel group. Because of this cut aid, Rwanda was forced to cut ties with the rebel group.
With this being said, what does this mean for the United Nations and their policies and strategies towards peacekeeping? With an international organization whose main focus and initiative is to resolve conflict and keep peace within countries by only using defensive tactics, this sudden use of offensive force ordered by the UN Security Council may have taken some states by surprise. However, looking at the bigger picture, this use of force may have been in the best interest for the country of Congo. Ultimately, the violent rebel groups has surrendered and the Congolese government can begin to focus on the process of disarmament, demobilization and social reintegration of the rebel troops.
Article:
Complimenting articles:
The Guardian: Britain withholds aid to Rwanda
The rebels that have "laid down their arms" could be viewed as a victory for international organizations such as the UN. The problem with this is credibility. Can we actually trust that these rebels have laid down their arms or ceded to the Congolese government? The credibility of this statement is low because it is currently disadvantageous for the rebel groups to be fighting but there is no guarantee for the future of this conflict. The M23 leader did say, “commanders are requested to prepare the troops for the process of disarmament, demobilization and social reintegration.” This is a historic statement in itself. Contrarily, as we learned in class, the DDR functionality is hard to predict as the "R" is extremely difficult to achieve, with high levels of uncertainty and political mistrust. In sum, I do think the UN could categorize this as small victory, but only time will tell if it is actually a certain win.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post I looked into the event a bit more. One of the other items of notable importance is that the Congolese Military, usually know for its lack of ethics in war, conducted a generally well behaved battle. This is significant for an African state, especially because it is demonstrative of the influence of IOs during conflict.Perhaps some African governments are realizing that their cooperation with norms with better facilitate assistance from IOs.
ReplyDeleteAs for the UN's new "intervention brigade"- I think it is a good idea that could prove more efficient and in many cases, cheaper. If weaker rebel groups are deterred by the intervention of a beefed up UN envoy, perhaps conflict will not ensure. The effectiveness of such a unit will surely be seen in the future of UN intervention.
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21588941-can-congolese-army-build-rare-victory-rebel-retreat
This is a really interesting situation, especially with the offensive response from the UN. I think the quote at the beginning of your post is a really good way to frame the UN response: “If there is no peace, there is nothing to keep.” This offensive reaction, I believe, is a positive development for the UN. I think being offensive in certain situations could be really advantageous for the international community. Having offensive power could add to the deterrence factor of the UN peacekeeping force. Especially in this case, when the peacekeeping goal was achieved through the offense, a change in direction could be positive.
ReplyDeleteI think post-Rwanda it was made very clear that going on the offensive would actually do more good than harm. The harsh reality is that defensive or offensive, civilians will die and if by the use of force you can limit the amount of casualties then thats what must be done.
ReplyDelete