About a month ago, various news organizations such as, BBC News, CNN and others reported about the ending of the M23 rebellion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is a conflict that I had known little about, until the announcement on the 5th of November that the M23 Rebels had surrendered to the Congolese government and would meet to sign a peace agreement. The M23 Rebels get their name from an agreement that was signed with the Congolese government on March 23rd 2009. This agreement was supposed to integrate the members of M23 into the Congolese national army. In 2012, the soldiers of M23 took up arms and broke away from the national army due to the Congolese government’s failure to implement the promises of the 2009 agreement. While this insurgency can look like it is mainly over military grievances it also has a complex ethnic component. Most of the M23 Rebels belong to the Tutsi ethnic group. Some of this fighting and disagreement is spill over from the 1994 Rwandan Genocide in which the ethnic minority, Tutsis, were massacred by the majority Hutus. This conflict is also further complicated by the influences of the Ugandan and Rwandan governments. The M23 rebels finally surrendered on November 5th after they suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Congolese Army and UN intervention brigade. One leader of the M23, Bertrand Bisimwa, stated M23 would “pursue, by purely political means, a search for solutions to the profound issues that led to its creation.” The ending of this conflict is not only an interesting example of insurgency but is also an interesting case to examine bargaining and the validity of peace agreements.
As a part of the surrender of the M23 Rebels to the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo they were to meet and sign a formal agreement. I discovered in my recent reading on the topic, the signing that was meant to happen on the 11th of November in Uganda never took place. The Congolese government refused to sign the peace agreement with the M23 rebels. DR Congo’s Foreign Affairs Minister states “We have encountered some difficulties over issues important to us, and we think that these difficulties can be removed before finalizing the process.” However, a Ugandan Government representative is quoted in the Wall Street Journal stating, the DR Congo is presenting “ last- minute demands and delay tactics.” In contrast, there are also reports from the UN that there are “no differences on substantive points within the draft document.” Most recently, on December 2nd, the president of DR Congo returned to Uganda in hopes of finally reaching an agreement with defeated M23 rebels. Would having a formal peace agreement make a difference? Will peace last? Will another rebel group pick up where the M23 left off? Will conflict escalate to war between the DR Congo and its neighbor, Uganda and/or Rwanda?
More Articles:
I will start by saying I guess it is a good thing that M23 is no longer officially operating as an organization, but unfortunately they are only a single group and I doubt that there surrender points to any type of improvement in the region. Although M23 and majority of rebel groups claim political motivation for activity but really instead participate for profit, which makes establishing peace again difficult when fighting is worth so much. I view their demise as just leaving a power vacuum for someone else to fill. I also do not know how much this is going to effect the relationship between the DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda, given that both Rwanda and Uganda have a history of supporting rebel groups that terrorize the DRC. At this point I think the DRC can not do anything back to the Rwandans or Ugandans to escalate regional tensions. Congo cannot control their own borders or any of the activity that occurs in their jungles, the literally do not have the force and ability. If the Congo fails to control its own nation, how is it possibly going to extend any type influence over Rwanda or Uganda. The DRC honestly has to rely on outside pressures for its benefit such as the US pressuring Rwanda and Uganda to stop supporting groups operating within the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a failed state who has suffered more deaths than any other war since WWII about a little bit over 5 million to my knowledge, and they have been at war for decades. Its hard to really tell who or why is even fighting due to the complexity of the situation. I just do not know how the fighting can possibly come to an end any time soon. Unless foreign intervention is willing to not only fight the rebel groups for the Congolese government but also police the nation for an extended period as the worlds poorest nation attempts heal it wounds and develop some type of infrastructure. Sadly the DRC is about one of the most troubled nations in the world who suffers multiple wounds and needs diverse medicine. Without a doubt security is the first step for Congo, I just do not seem them getting it any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the points stated in the previous comment. The situation is most dire in DRC but I'm not sure if more foreign policing would do anything. Cases such as Vietnam, Somalia, and even Iraq currently have shown that it is extremely difficult for a foreign agent to police a state where the local populace despise your presence.
DeleteAs was also stated many of these rebel groups have just splintered off and are only M23 in name. Essentially as long as there's a profit to be made it appears that some will join in. This is common of FARC and a lot of the other para-military groups in Colombia. Another common tactic used by those groups is very similar to what was done in the DRC, by claiming to come to a peace agreement and then pulling out at the last minute. I personally think that the act's done for free publicity. It helps keep them in the spotlight and lets there supposed message/cause/demands be heard by the population.
Sorry I don't have any real solutions/answers and just a lot of gripe.