The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
has been engulfed in internal conflict for more than two decades. This can be
attributed to the presence of more than ten armed opposition groups to the
government and the M23 rebel group who began to increase their terrorist
activity since April of 2012, making them one of the most active and therefore
most widely known at the international level. M23 rebels justified their
actions due to the DRC government’s supposed marginalization of the Tutsi
minority, showing ethnic repression, and their failure to adhere to past peace
accords between the parties. With the help of a United Nations (UN) force of
19,000 troops who were mandated to neutralize armed forces, the DRC government
successfully defeated the insurgency mid-November.
Coinciding with this government offensive,
rebel military commander, Gen. Sultani Makenga and his force of 1,700 surrendered
to army officials in the neighboring country of Uganda. The rebel group used
Uganda as a “safe haven” to resupply and to escape the DR Congo military
forces.
“A report by the UN group of experts has said neighbouring Rwanda provided weapons, recruits and training to the M23. It also alleged that some in Uganda's military supported the rebels”The UN report shows the porousness of the countries’ border and the regional influence the rebel group maintained.
The reason I bring up this topic now is
because the M23 rebels and the DRC government just signed documents Thursday to
officially end rebellion (in Eastern DRC), to demobilize and transform the M23
group into a legitimate political party. These documents also stated that there
will be no “blanket of amnesty”, those that committed war crimes will be held
accountable to international law, while those not accused will be reinserted
back into society.
In regards to the DRC government's success in
defeating the M23 rebels with assistance from UN forces, should the UN continue
to mandate the use of force to neutralize insurgencies in other conflicts? Do
you agree with the DRC government’s choice to attempt to transform the M23
rebel participants into a legitimate political party? Should there be any consequences
for the Ugandan or Rwandan government or military for assisting the M23 rebel group? If so, why or why not?
When addressing issues in regard to the pacification of insurgent groups it is important to take into account their grievances. As was discussed in class, it is possible to make minor concessions on non-essential issues and begin the process of integrating armed groups into the political process. In this regard, the government of the DRC was prudent in their efforts to stabilize their otherwise precarious security situation on the eastern border. This also shows a conscious effort to improve government legitimacy, which in a developing state is arguably the most important factor in increasing state capacity. As far as consequences for Rwanda and Uganda are concerned, I doubt there will ever be any significant ramifications. The UN has consistently called for Rwanda and Uganda to halt supplying rebel groups in the Congo, but nothing has been done to bring about a concrete solution, be it sanctions etc.
ReplyDeleteThe UN has seen much success in ending conflicts peacefully and adverting war. However, there have experienced monumental failures, such as in 1994 Rwanda. Darfur during 2003 echoes another failure by the UN to fully pacify the fighting. The recent success in the DRC could start a new trend in UN mandate to play an active role in prevention. Since there was success, the UN should continue the mandate to avoid future failures.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would allow for a little more time to pass before I stated that this was a success, and that it should be used as the framework for ending civil wars. Although I do think that this is a very shrewd solution for ending conflicts it could only work in the DRC.
DeleteThe UN should continue to mandate the use of force against any rebels not complying. FARC for example has signed multiple ceasefires with little avail. FARC however had often signed ceasefires to then be attacked unjustly by the government forces of Colombia. As the article stated there will be no security blanket for war criminals, those likely to receive punishment have no incentive to lay down arms. Like the rightest militias of Colombia when peace agreements many of M23 rebels have engaged in their activities for financial/material gain. If members didn't join due to grievances and a real cause then once again they have no incentive to disband and quit criminal activity.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, without a doubt the de-mobilization of M23 into a political party is a good idea and a step in the right direction. There are fears down the line however of re-mobilization and overthrow/rigging of the government in an attempt to claim international legitimacy. This possibility is heightened when considering the involvement of the governments of Uganda and Rwanda. I have to agree with Benjamin when he says that there will likely be little no ramifications for the governments of Rwanda and Uganda, as theres no will/capability or real international precedent thats enforceable on the issue. When thinking about the role of the U.N. as long as there are participants on the ground form both sides willing to communicate with the peacekeepers on the ground, then whatever action is necessary to keep violence in an overall sense to a minimum is what should be employed.
ReplyDeleteThe UN has the ability to help prevent conflicts from arising, but what can they actually do if something is already escalated to a conflict. The UN is essentially seen as ineffective if something breaks out. This is mostly due to the fact that the UN is supposed to be neutral, but often times in oder to diffuse a situation, they must take a side, which could lead to other engagements or have serious consequences leading to more of a political action.
ReplyDelete