165 Congo - No Stability in Kivu Despite Rapprochement With Rwanda ENGLISH

CONGO: NO STABILITY IN KIVU DESPITE A RAPPROCHEMENT WITH RWANDA

Africa Report N°165 – 16 November 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. i

I.  AN EXIT STRATEGY FROM THE DRC-RWANDA CRISIS ................................... 1 

A.  GOMA CRISIS ............................................................................................................................... 1 B.  UNEXPECTED RAPPROCHEMENT BETWEEN DRC AND RWANDA .................................................. 2 

1.  Secret agreement to strengthen the respective position of the two presidents ............................. 2 2.  Exit from the stalemate by a reshuffle of alliances ..................................................................... 3 3.  Unanimous support from the international community ............................................................... 4 

II.  IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PLAN ..................................... 5 

A.  MILITARY CAMPAIGNS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE RESULTS ............................................. 6 1.  The inefficiency of FARDC-led military operations ................................................................... 6 2.  Cost of military failure for the population ................................................................................... 8 3.  Powerless MONUC ................................................................................................................... 10 4.  Failure of integration and an increase in activities by Congolese armed groups ....................... 11 5.  An aborted resettlement plan ..................................................................................................... 12 

B.  UNFINISHED POLITICAL SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................ 13 1.  A fool’s game between the CNDP and the Congolese government ......................................... 13 2.  Regional relocation of protests .................................................................................................. 15 3.  Worsening of intercommunity antagonisms .............................................................................. 17 

C.  LABORIOUS BEGINNINGS TO THE ECONOMIC PEACE AGENDA .................................................... 18 1.  The limited impact of the stabilisation programmes .................................................................. 19 2.  Provincial power struggle .......................................................................................................... 20 3.  From regional confrontation to regional cooperation ............................................................... 20 

III. CHANGING THE APPROACH TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT . 22 

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25 

APPENDICES

A. MAP OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ............................................................................. 26

B. MAP OF NORTH AND SOUTH KIVU ................................................................................................... 27

C. REGIONAL COOPERATION ................................................................................................................ 28

D. GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... 31

E. ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP .................................................................................... 33

F. CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON AFRICA SINCE 2007 ..................................................... 34

G. CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES ................................................................................................ 36

Africa Report N°165 16 November 2010

CONGO: NO STABILITY IN KIVU DESPITE A RAPPROCHEMENT WITH RWANDA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The plan to resolve the conflict in the Kivu by emphasis-ing a military solution is failing. Two years after the rap-prochement between Congolese President Joseph Kabila and his Rwandan counterpart, Paul Kagame, government soldiers are still battling militias for control of land and mines. Neither side has the strength to win, but both have the resources to prolong the fighting indefinitely. Mean-while, civilians suffer extreme violence, and the humani-tarian situation is deteriorating. Ethnic tensions have wors-ened in anticipation of the repatriation of tens of thou-sands of Congolese refugees who fled to Rwanda during the 1990s. The UN Security Council has witnessed the deterioration of security in eastern Congo without oppos-ing the decisions of Kagame and Kabila. A strategy based on secret presidential commitments, however, will not bring peace to the Kivu: the present approach must be reevalu-ated and broadened in order to engage all local communi-ties and prepare the future of the region in a transparent dialogue that also involves neighbouring countries.

During summer 2008, the National Congress of the Peo-ple (CNDP), a Congolese rebel group then led by the Tutsi General Laurent Nkunda and backed clandestinely by Rwanda, withdrew from negotiations with the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A major crisis erupted in the province of North Kivu, catching the Congolese authorities and the UN peacekeeping mission (then called MONUC) off guard. The international com-munity, concerned about the consequences of a CNDP conquest of the capital of North Kivu, Goma, launched multiple initiatives to prevent an escalation that could lead to confrontation between Rwanda and the DRC.

In November 2008, President Kabila reached out to Presi-dent Kagame, his long-time adversary, to end the crisis. Without recourse to formal mediation mechanisms favoured by the international community, the two leaders negoti-ated an agreement whose content remains secret. The Congolese initiative surprised most of the international partners of the Great Lakes region. They were relieved, however, that discussions about international intervention to stabilise the Kivu could abruptly end.

Kabila and Kagame are now working to implement the bilateral commitments in their joint plan to resolve the conflict in the Kivu. This involves two major concessions by Kabila. First, he undertook to meet the political de-mands of the rebel group, the CNDP, that has in the past caused him most problems with his electoral base. Sec-ondly, he agreed to launch military operations that serve more to meet the interests of those conducting them than to protect the population. The success of this plan, includ-ing its political and economic components, depends on the response of the Kivu population to the redistribution of local power as well as to the ability of the national army (FARDC) to achieve Kinshasa’s military objectives.

The Congolese-Rwandan rapprochement has altered the balance of power in North and South Kivu. General Nkunda was arrested in January 2009 and replaced by Bosco Ntaganda, a suspected war criminal for whom the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant in 2006. The CNDP, which was originally established to de-fend the interests of the Tutsi community, was integrated into and has become a major part of the national army. Its political agenda was put front and centre in the imple-mentation of an agreement between the government and the Congolese armed groups in the Kivu. The new influ-ence gained by the CNDP is resented by leaders of other communities who fear that it will disadvantage them in the general elections scheduled for 2011-2012.

But the limits of the politico-military approach designed in Kinshasa and Kigali have already been reached. Despite three successive operations conducted by the Congolese army, the humanitarian situation in the Kivu has deterio-rated, and instances of extreme violence have multiplied. Women and girls, particularly, have suffered the conse-quences of impunity and of a highly militarised environ-ment in which rape is endemic. The population is being victimised by both retribution campaigns of the rebels and unpunished human rights violations by Congolese soldiers.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page ii The Rwandan Hutu rebel group, Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), is resisting forcible disarmament by forming alliances with Congolese militias that refuse in-tegration into the national army. It has been chased out of many mining sites it previously controlled, but the natural resources have not yet been brought under legitimate con-trol. Dissidents from Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi seek support in the Kivu to create cross-border armed coalitions. In response, there are increasing signs of neighbours’ in-terference in the Kivu.

The rapid integration of former rebels, involving suspected war criminals, into the national army and their subsequent involvement in poorly planned military operations have done little to resolve the conflict in the East. The UN effort to correct course by implementing a new conditionality policy for its peacekeepers’ support has not affected the behaviour of Congolese forces. The credibility of MONUC – renamed MONUSCO in July 2010 – has been seriously undermined by its failure to protect civilians better.

Meanwhile, struggle for local power has made rule of law in the Kivu even more problematic. Land conflicts and inter-communal tensions have multiplied, exacerbated by repeated cycles of displacement. Unresolved inconsisten-cies between customary and statutory law put traditional chiefs in opposition to administrative authorities seeking to implement the CNDP agenda. The branches of provin-cial government are trading accusations of corruption, thus creating a crisis of local governance. Despite the growth of trade in cities along the border and the revival of re-gional economic institutions, long-term economic devel-opment remains elusive.

Combined, these factors increase the risk of inter-ethnic clashes, disintegration of the national army and destabili-sation of the region as a result of neighbours’ meddling. Unless the current approach is broadened to bring in all communities in a transparent way and new international momentum is created, the population will continue to bear the brunt of the failed attempts to establish state sover-eignty in the Kivu.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Government of Congo, its international partners and MONUSCO:

1. Suspend offensive military operations in the Kivu pending deployment of internationally-trained battal-ions, including units trained by the U.S., China, Bel-gium, South Africa and Angola, and then:

a) deploy the trained Congolese battalions first in Masisi and Rutshuru territories in North Kivu to provide security for the population while the 23 March 2009 agreement between Kinshasa and the

Congolese armed groups is being fully imple-mented; and apply targeted military pressure on the FDLR in North and South Kivu, while inter-national partners monitor and support these bat-talions in the field;

b) focus MONUSCO forces on immediately increas-ing protection of the population from gross human rights violations, including by maintaining an air-borne rapid support and deployment capacity, de-fensive deployments and joint protection teams; help the national army hold territories left by the FDLR; and regain Congolese trust by ensuring that the rules of engagement are actively implemented and pursuing the arrest of Bosco; and

c) start a revised program combined with a new dis-armament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) program under international responsibility to proc-ess all soldiers who have joined the national army since January 2008, including ex-CNDP and Con-golese rebels now associated with the FDLR; and begin to reduce the 60,000 troops in the Kivu to the target number of 21,000 in the government’s January 2010 army reform plan.

To the Government of Congo and the CNDP:

2. Implement fully the 23 March agreement, including by:

a) renewing the mandate of the National Steering Committee (CNS) that expired in May 2010, so that international partners can support and moni-tor the CNS by reporting regularly on implemen-tation of each side’s commitments; and reopening discussions on the ranks of the officers of other Congolese armed groups who have been integrated into the national army;

b) appointing CNDP figures to the North Kivu pro-vincial institutions in exchange for verifiable dis-mantlement of CNDP parallel administrative and tax structures, subject to MONUSCO monitoring and reporting to the CNS; and arresting Bosco;

c) handing over responsibility for security of the Masisi and Rutshuru territories to national army bat-talions trained by foreign partners and MONUSCO;

d) committing troops who have participated in the “Amani Leo” operation to join the new DDR program, so that all ex-CNDP fighters are either completely integrated into the national army or police or reinserted into civilian life; and

e) committing not to engage in any political or mili-tary activities with foreign dissidents, including those of the Rwandan general, Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page iii To the Governments of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):

3. Oversee and ensure a secure environment for refugee return in the Kivu, including by:

a) conducting a census of the undocumented refu-gees who returned to the Kivu since summer 2009 in partnership with UNHCR; starting a nationality verification process and issuing voter cards to eli-gible persons before elections; and reviving the joint Congo-Rwanda-Uganda verification mecha-nism to deter illegal immigration into the Kivu; and

b) starting repatriation of refugees from Rwanda and Uganda under UNHCR conditions, including vol-untary return and security of the zones of return; the permanent local conciliation committees (CLPC) should decide if security conditions allow return based on clear benchmarks; and areas determined by MONUSCO to be under parallel administra-tion should not be considered open for return.

To the Government of Congo:

4. Build the institutions and the capacities to foster inter-communal reconciliation and dispute management, including by:

a) developing expertise to manage land conflicts, in-cluding a land commission to review titles; rein-forcing STAREC, the Congolese government or-ganisation in charge of stabilisation programs, as a permanent conflict resolution mechanism; im-plementing the 2008 Goma conference resolutions on peace and security; and dedicating adequate resources and additional staff taken on through a transparent recruitment process;

b) empowering provincial institutions with resources and authority to respond to local needs; and creat-ing the legal and administrative framework to ad-dress issues of ethnic minorities’ political repre-sentation and inconsistencies between customary and modern law; and

c) holding a roundtable with local communities, pro-vincial authorities and national representatives to set clear guidelines for allocating posts in the pro-vincial administration; map out a consensual proc-ess for distancing local communities from armed groups; and adopt a code of conduct for political activities in the Kivu.

To the Presidents of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi:

5. Organise a special summit of the Economic Commu-nity of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) to:

a) open political discussions at head-of-state level and chaired by the African Development Bank (ADB) to agree on economic, land and population move-ment issues, with the aim of forming a mutually beneficial vision for the future of the Great Lakes region;

b) analyse jointly the region’s traumatic history, so as to foster reconciliation between Congolese and Rwandans; and

c) commit not to interfere in legitimate efforts at con-solidation of the state in eastern Congo.

Nairobi/Brussels, 16 November 2010

Africa Report N°165 16 November 2010

CONGO: NO STABILITY IN KIVU DESPITE A RAPPROCHEMENT WITH RWANDA

I. AN EXIT STRATEGY FROM THE DRC-RWANDA CRISIS

Amongst the numerous ethnic communities which coexist in the Kivu region1, the Tutsi and the Hutu both have their historic roots in Rwanda.2 Between the beginning of the first war in Congo in 1996 and the end of the second in 2003, Rwanda kept its troops in the Kivu. Many Congo-lese resented this military presence, viewing it as foreign occupation of a rich region of their country. Supported by Kigali, the Rassemblement congolais pour la Democratie (RCD) enabled both Hutu and Tutsi figures to control po-litical, economic and security institutions in Kivu until the 2006 elections. Then presidential candidate Joseph Kabila, secretly agreed with the Rwandan authorities to integrate the RCD into his government should he win.3

The RCD suffered a crushing defeat at the elections, and the post of North Kivu governor was once again in the hands of a member of the Nande community that is dominating the “Grand Nord” territories.4 The new power structure in this province and President Kabila’s recon-sideration of his earlier commitment caused leaders of the 1 Until an official division of boundaries in 1986, Kivu com-prised the current provinces of North Kivu, South Kivu and Maniema. “Kivu” by convention in this report refers to the geographic ensemble of North and South Kivu. 2 These Rwandan-speaking communities are also collectively known as “Banyarwanda”. 3 See Crisis Group Africa Report N°133, Congo: Bringing Peace to North Kivu, 31 October 2007, pp. 2-5. 4 At the beginning of 2007, the outgoing governor, Joseph Se-rufuli, a Hutu from Rutshuru, gave way to Julien Paluku, a Nande from Lubero and former mayor of Beni and Butembo towns. North Kivu could be divided into two entities. The most important territories from the “Grand Nord” are the Beni and Lubero territories. The three biggest of the “Petit Nord”, in the south of the province, are Rutshuru, Masisi and Walikale. Amongst the province’s nine communities, the Nande is the largest demographically. This community is mainly concentrated in the Grand Nord where its members account for more than 90 per cent of inhabitants. In the Petit Nord, Hutu and Tutsi com-munities represent 40 per cent of the inhabitants of Goma and the Masisi and Rutshuru territories. Demographic data provided by the MONUC’s political section in July 2008.

Tutsi community to worry about their vulnerability in the face of reprisals. With consent from Kigali, the Tutsi community representatives in North Kivu decided to sup-port the Congolese Tutsi General Laurent Nkunda, foun-der of the politico-military organisation Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple (CNDP) just a few days before the first round of the presidential election in July 2006.5

The first two years of the CNDP’s existence were punc-tuated by periods of confrontation and negotiation. The failure of the Congolese Government and the Congolese armed groups from Kivu to honour commitments made during a January 2008 peace conference in Goma, has-tened a renewal of hostilities around the provincial capital of North Kivu. The “Goma crisis” in autumn 2008 even-tually concluded with a dramatic rapprochement between Kigali and Kinshasa.

A. GOMA CRISIS

On 28 August 2008, the Congolese national army (FARDC) launched its sixth offensive since 2004 against the Nkunda-led rebel group. In less than two months, FARDC were routed and the CNDP militia were within sight of Goma deserted by the government troops in October 2008. The United Nations Peacekeeping Mission (MONUC) de-clared itself incapable of protecting the civilian popula-tion against war crimes committed by both sides,6 and the United Nations Secretary-General called for a third Euro-pean military mission in DRC.7 In view of the gravity of the situation, some key countries from the international

5 Crisis Group Report, Congo: Bringing Peace to North Kivu, op. cit, pp.6-8. 6 See Crisis Group Africa Report N°150, Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuilding Strategy, 11 May 2009, pp. 2-5. 7 Two temporary deployments of troops had already been con-ducted under the supervision of the European Union as a com-plement to MONUC. In 2003, Operation Artemis led to the lib-eration of Bunia from the grip of the militia from Ituri district. In 2006, the EUFOR operation were brought in to confront the threat of the destabilisation in the country during the elections, played a role in securing the capital Kinshasa at a crucial mo-ment in the Congolese democratic transition.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 2 community reproached Kigali and Kinshasa for their an-tagonistic policies in eastern Congo.8

In 2006, the return to peace in DRC was a campaign prom-ise which mobilized more than 90 per cent of the voters in Kivu in support of the candidate Kabila.9 General Nkunda had therefore just inflicted a military and politi-cal humiliation on the Congolese president. Triumphantly, the CNDP leader received the diplomatic delegations and the international press on his farm in the hills of Masisi. There Nkunda revealed to them his national ambitions, which raised fears of the emergence of a new rebel group similar to the Alliance des forces démocratiques pour la liberation du Congo (AFDL).10

Urgently, in the margins of a session of the United Nations General Assembly at the end of September 2008, the U.S. Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, submitted to the Rwandan and Congolese delega-tions a plan to resolve the crisis.11 The confidential docu-ment listed the conditions for a rapprochement between the two countries, including recourse to a joint military operation against the Forces démocratiques pour la libera-tion du Rwanda (FDLR),12 a rebel Rwandan Hutu group operating in the North and South Kivu provinces.13 The personal relationships between presidents Kagame and Kabila were at an all time low.14

8 See Crisis Group Africa Report N°151, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, 9 July 2009, pp. 3-4. 9 See Crisis Group Africa Briefing N°73, Congo: A Stalled De-mocratic Agenda, 8 April 2010, pp. 2-3 and 8. 10 This alliance is the rebel movement which allowed Laurent Désiré Kabila, the father of the current Congolese Head of State, to overthrow the regime of President Mobutu and seize power in 1997. The AFDL benefited massively from the support of Rwanda. “War in the East: CNDP becomes a movement for the liberation of Congolese people”, Radio Okapi, 3 October 2008. Also see Crisis Group Report, Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuilding Strategy, op. cit., p. 3. 11 Crisis Group interviews, members of the U.S. Permanent Rep-resentation to the United Nations, New York, September 2008. 12 Crisis Group interview, advisor to President Kabila and mem-ber of the Congolese Delegation sent to the High-Level Plenary Session of the 63rd Session of the UN Assembly General, DRC, 29 May 2010. 13 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit. 14 In an interview with a journalist on 6 September, President Kagame gave details of content of the conversation held be-tween the two leaders. See Colette Braeckman, “Le president Kagame à coeur ouvert”, Le carnet de Colette Braeckman, 6 September 2008, http://blogs.lesoir.be/colette-braeckman/2008/ 09/06/le-president-kagame-a-coeur-ouvert. On 9 October, Presi-dent Kabila publicly accused the CNDP of being in the service of foreign forces a few hours after the denunciation by a mem-ber of his government of Rwandan participation in the fighting

B. UNEXPECTED RAPPROCHEMENT BETWEEN DRC AND RWANDA

In the last days of October 2008, a strategic U-turn took place. A series of bilateral meetings between Congolese and Rwandan officials began on 28 October in Kigali with a meeting between the Foreign Ministers Alexis Thambwe Mwamba and Rosemary Museminali.15 At an exceptional regional summit in Nairobi on 7 November, which brought together Kabila and Kagame, the new Special Represen-tative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the Great Lakes Region, Olusegun Obasanjo, noted that the head of the Congolese state had got closer to his Rwandan and Ugandan counterparts.16 On the basis of the American proposition, Kabila and Kagame concluded a secret agreement in November.17 The agreement’s exis-tence was publicly confirmed on 5 December when the Congolese and Rwandan Foreign Ministers announced in Goma that the armies of both countries would launch anti-FLDR operations and that direct negotiations would be opened between CNDP and Kinshasa.18

1. Secret agreement to strengthen the respective position of the two presidents

It was the constraints and respective interests of Kabila and Kagame which brought them closer. It was essential for the Congolese president that he ended the conflict, putting him against the CNDP, and neutralised Nkunda. The military solution had failed again and none of the DRC’s international partners wanted to contribute to an operation against the CNDP.19 After the Goma crisis, the

in North Kivu. “Joseph Kabila appelle les Congolais à un sur-saut de patriotism pour conjurer la destabilisation de la Na-tion!”, Digital Congo, 10 October 2008, www.digitalcongo.net/ article/54116#. See also “Combats/RDC: Kinshasa accuse Ki-gali d’envoyer des troupes sur son territoire”, Agence France-Presse, 9 October 2008. 15 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit, pp. 3-5. 16 Crisis Group interview, Olusegun Obasanjo, former Nigerian president, Nairobi, 11 January 2009. 17 Crisis Group interview, advisor to President Kabila and mem-ber of the Congolese Delegation sent to the High-Level Plenary Session of the 63rd Session of the UN General-Assembly, DRC, 29 May 2010. 18 From 9 to 10 December the U.S. hosted a meeting in Kigali of Defence Ministers from DRC, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi in the framework of a “Tripartite plus one” mechanism. There they discussed elimination of the security threat posed by illegal armed groups in the eastern DRC. On 14 December, a surprise offen-sive was launched against the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) on Congolese soil by Ugandan military units. On 20 January 2009, the Rwandan army entered Kivu to attack the FDLR. 19 During the Goma Crisis, the idea of a short-term European military intervention was considered but later abandoned, the

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 3 political cost of supporting the Nkunda rebellion became too much for the Rwandan president. Indeed, President Kagame statements denying Rwanda’s implication were, for the first time, openly contested by his western allies.20 Kagame still had to continue to protect Rwandan political and economic interests in the Kivu. He needed to guaran-tee the protection and provincial political influence of the Congolese Tutsis, even though the FDLR still constituted a threat and prevented the return to North Kivu of thou-sands of Congolese Tutsi refugees in Rwanda. The two heads of states came to an agreement which eventually altered the balance of power in the Kivu.

In Kinshasa, the details of the conflict resolution plan were elaborated by Katumba Mwanke, the special advisor to the presidency.21 The implementation of its politico-military component was entrusted to John Numbi, the chief of the national police.22 Both of Kabila’s right-hand men were from Katanga.23 The North and South Kivu governors

French President Sarkozy – at the time holder of the European Council Presidency – indicated at a European Council meeting on 12 December that MONUC had sufficient troops to carry out the mission. Crisis Group report, Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuilding Strategy, op. cit., pp. 6-7. The Southern Afri-can Development Community (SADC) and later Angola were also solicited to send soldiers to North Kivu. The Angolan Presi-dent Dos Santos refused saying that his country would only in-tervene to stop a genocide or to defend the integrity of the DRC. Crisis Group interview, Olusegun Obasanjo, Special Represen-tative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the Great Lakes region, 11 January 2009. 20 “Les EU mettent en garde les rebelles de RD Congo de rester hors de Goma”, Agence France-Presse, 30 October 2008. 21 Crisis Group interviews, Congolese politicians, Kinshasa, January and February 2009. 22 John Numbi and the Rwandan Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) James Kabarebe, met in Rwanda in the border town of Gisenyi, on 24 and 25 November, then in Kinshasa on 8 January 2009 to prepare the neutralisation of Nkunda and the launch of the op-eration “Umoja Wetu” against the FDLR. 23 Born in 1963 in Pweto, Katanga, Katumba Mwanke is from the Bemba ethnic group. He is considered the most influential presidential advisor. Arriving into power with Laurent-Désiré Kabila, he stayed with his son where he has continued to as-sume strategic functions. His name figured on the list of indi-viduals for whom individual sanctions are recommended by a group of experts mandated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. See “Final report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, United Na-tions Security Council, S/2002/1146, 16 October 2002, p. 8 and Annex II. Born in 1962 in North Katanga, John Numbi is from the Luba tribe like Laurent-Désiré Kabila. He befriended the Kabila family in the 1990s, while he was an active member of the party of the Union des Fédeéalistes et Républicains Inde-pendants (UFERI) which committed ethnic cleansing in Katanga. Becoming militarised under the orders of James Kabarebe after the overthrow of Mobutu, he collaborated again with the latter

were not involved in the development of this plan24 and the two most influential national figures from Kivu, Mbusa Nyamwisi and Vital Kamerhe, were also pushed to one side.25 On the other hand, the former RCD governor from North Kivu, Eugène Serufuli, was solicited by Kinshasa and Kigali.26 Serufuli, promoter of the concept of “Rwan-daphonie” an alliance to unite the Hutu and Tutsi Congo-lese communities, tried during his mandate in North Kivu to create a Hutu/Tutsi political front to compensate the demographic advantage of the Nande community.27

The political balance between communities needed to be taken into account to implement the plan. With the agree-ment reached between presidents Kabila and Kagame the alliances were reversed on the ground at the expense of a change in the balance of power between the Kivu com-munities.

2. Exit from the stalemate by a reshuffle of alliances

The first change in alliance involved Nkunda and Rwanda. A United Nations experts report in December 2008 pub-licly confirmed the existence of Rwandan support for the CNDP.28 During an interview with Crisis Group on 30 January 2009, President Kagame explained that his intel-ligence services had sent a message to General Nkunda requesting him to end the crisis. The position of the rebel general was abruptly weakened while Numbi secretly ne-gotiated his eviction with his rival within the CNDP, Bosco Ntaganda. The founder of the CNDP was finally in the negotiation of a failed integration attempt with the CNDP at the beginning of 2007. Numbi belonged to the President’s inner circle until his arrest in June 2010 for his presumed role in the assassination of the human rights activist, Floribert Chebeya. 24 “Un nouvel ordre politique à l’est de la RDC”, Pole Institute, 26 January 2009, p. 4. 25 Mbusa Nyamwisi, a Nande from North Kivu, was replaced in the post of Foreign Minister by Thambwe Mwamba (from Maniema) during a 27 October 2008 cabinet reshuffle. Vital Kamerhe, born in Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu, was forced to resign as Speaker of the National Assembly for having pub-licly shown his opposition to the joint anti-FDLR operation, on 21 January 2009. Crisis Group briefing, Congo: A Stalled De-mocratic Agenda, op. cit., pp. 8-9. 26 Crisis Group interviews, CNDP officers, Goma, March 2009. Since November 2008 and during the first months of 2009, Se-rufuli presided over a series of meetings with Hutu community representatives from North Kivu. See also Jason Stearns, “Poli-tics in North Kivu since CNDP’s integration”, Congo Siasa, 12 October 2009, http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/2009/10/guest-blogger-politics-in-north-kivu.html. 27 Crisis Group report, Congo: Bringing Peace to North Kivu, op. cit., pp. 4-5. 28 See “Final Report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo”, Security Council, S/2008/ 773, 12 December 2008.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 4 arrested in Gisenyi, Rwanda, during the night of 22 Janu-ary 2009.29 On hearing the news of his arrest spontaneous demonstrations broke out in the Congolese Tutsi refugee camps in Rwanda.30

The Rwandan Chief of Defence Staff, James Kabarebe, convinced Colonel Sultani Makenga and other CNDP officers close to Nkunda that the Kigali-Kinshasa rap-prochement necessitated their integration into the FARDC. The CNDP alignment to the Rwandan recruits was not well received by Nkunda supporters. On 28 January, Makenga left the Rumangabo base a few minutes before the inaugural integration ceremony began. Only 60 CNDP soldiers remained to take part in the event attended by Bosco and the Congolese Minister of Defence.31

Granting a general amnesty for rebellion and liberating CNDP prisoners, continuing direct negotiations and launch-ing offensives against the FDLR were not enough to con-solidate the CNDP integration within the Congolese army. Kinshasa unofficially offered additional guarantees:32 CNDP’s military chain of command and its parallel civil administration in the Masisi and Rutshuru territory in North Kivu would not be immediately dismantled; the North and South Kivu mines, until then controlled by the FDLR and the Mayi Mayi Congolese militia, would be distributed to the benefit of the CNDP after their conquest; CNDP commanders implicated in war crimes would not be harassed; and a mechanism would be put in place for the return of Congolese Tutsi refugees from Rwanda. It seemed that commitments had also been made regarding access to grazing land in North Kivu for thousands of cows belonging to Congolese Tutsis and Rwandan military.33

The second change of alliance involved the FDLR and the Congolese authorities. Since their arrival in Kivu after the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, the FDLR openly collabo-rated with successive regimes in Kinshasa until 2002.

29 Crisis Group reports, Congo: Five Priorities for a Peace-building Strategy, op. cit., p. 7; and Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., p. 4. 30 Furthermore demonstrations in the Gihembe and Kiziba camps, protests in the ranks of the Rwandan army and within the Tutsi community in Rwanda were also reported. 31 Crisis Group interview, Rumangabo ceremony witness, Goma, 20 February. See also “Intégration des troupes et invalidation des deputes proches du CNDP”, Pole Institute, 3 February 2009. 32 Crisis Group report, Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuild-ing Strategy, op. cit., pp. 9-13. 33 Crisis Group telephone interview, Brussels, 12 August 2010. Before each new crisis between CNDP and FARDC, Masisi cows were shielded from the fighting in Rwanda. With a price per head rising to US$600, tens of millions of dollars need to be protected. See “Mapping Conflict Motives: Eastern DRC”, International Peace Information Service (IPIS), 11 March 2008, p. 26.

From 2002 to the end of 2008, the Congolese leaders closed their eyes to the cooperation, which despite being officially forbidden still existed between FARDC officers and the rebel Rwandan group. Taking a different ap-proach to this strategy, President Kabila resorted to force to disarm the FDLR.34

By authorising the Rwandan army to intervene in North Kivu, Kabila presented a credible military challenge to the FDLR but he also took a major political risk considering the hostility that the majority of Congolese have towards their former enemy. At the end of 2008, Kinshasa de-manded that their military cut all communication with the Rwandan rebels. The influential members of the Congo-lese Hutu community were also pressured into cutting ties with them.35 The launch of the joint DRC-Rwandan op-eration “Umoja Wetu” (Our Unity) on 20 January 2009 was viewed as treason by the FDLR leadership.36

The third change of alliance consisted of organising a political and economic rapprochement between the DRC and Rwanda. The new Kinshasa-Kigali axis is counter-balancing the privileged relationship that Congo maintained with its traditional Angolan ally since the 1998 war.37 In December 2008, the Congolese and Rwandan governments announced the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and the effective re-launching of the Economic Commu-nity of the Countries of the Great Lakes (CEPGL).38 This new rapprochement was ratified in Goma on 6 August 2009 during the first bilateral summit between the two Heads of State since the 1996 war.

3. Unanimous support from the international community

While it is likely that a restricted group of foreign repre-sentatives had access to the contents of the secret agree-ment, the diplomats from numerous international partner

34 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., pp. 19-23. 35 Crisis Group interviews, Political Section and Disarmament, Demobilisation, Repatriation, Reintegration and Resettlement (DDRRR) officers, MONUC, Goma, 16 February 2009 and 19 April 2010. 36 During the first three months of 2008, the political leaders from FDLR/FOCA operating in Germany and France edited almost twenty press releases and two open letters to call on the international community to put weight behind their arguments and put an end to military operations. 37 Relations with Luanda had been tense since the opening of negotiations in 2007 on the associated rights of offshore oil and gas zones in the Angolan enclave of Cabinda. Benjamin Augé, “Border Conflict Tied to Hydrocarbons in the Great Lakes Re-gion of Africa”, in Jacques Lesource, Governance of Oil in Af-rica: Unfinished Business (IFRI, Paris, 2009), p. 188. 38 See regional cooperation annex.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 5 organisations in the Congo were not aware of it.39 Even though the whole international community publicly sup-ported the rapprochement, the exact conditions had not been revealed to them. On 22 December 2008, the United Nations Security Council voted Resolution 1856, which urged the two governments to reinforce their cooperation to make a start on disarmament and repatriation of the FDLR. The United Nations officials also acknowledged the rapprochement they had encouraged. They feared how-ever that by negotiating in secret and from a position of weakness, the Congolese president might have been forced to accept a change in economic and political power in Kivu, which would benefit a legalised CNDP. They antici-pated a deterioration of inter-community tensions based on the perception of the domination of the Tutsi commu-nity in North Kivu.40

Congo’s western allies had requested Kinshasa to neutral-ise the FDLR, but at the same time refused to deploy their own contingents to Kivu. At the time of the announcement of operation “Umoja Wetu”, the incapacity of FARDC to conduct operations on the ground without putting the population in danger was known to western diplomats. The integration process of 18,000 fighters from the CNDP and other armed groups41 was carried out over just a few weeks and did not include the removal of those command-ers strongly suspected of already having committed war crimes. Irrespective of their views on the chances of suc-cessfully disarming the FDLR by force, some embassies hoped that the participation of the Rwandan army in this first joint operation would weaken the FDLR enough to please Kigali.42 No country or international organisation expressed any opposition to the agreement between Kabila and Kagame.

39 Crisis Group interview, senior United Nations officials, New York, 21 January 2009. Representatives of the Political Affairs Division regretted that the Special Representative Olusegun Obasanjo had not been informed of the agreement even though he had participated in the negotiations between the Congolese government and the CNDP since December 2008. 40 Crisis Group interview, senior United Nations officials, New York, 21 January 2009. The Peacekeeping Department antici-pated a reaction from the Nande community who controls the “Grand Nord” in North Kivu. 41 Figure established through a biometric survey conducted by EUSEC, the European Support Mission to the military section of security sector reform in DRC. Crisis Group interview, EU Delegation, Kinshasa, 29 June 2010. 42 Crisis Group interview, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) diplomats, London, 16 July 2009.

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PLAN

The Kivu conflict resolution plan evolved through the numerous failed peace agreements with the different armed groups. The 9 November 2007 Nairobi Communiqué and the 23 July 2008 agreement concluding the Goma confer-ence defined a “peace doctrine” with simple principles: political and military integration of former Congolese rebels, reestablishment of state authority, forced disar-mament, repatriation and resettlement of FDLR members, refugee return to their country of origin and regional de-velopment in order to diffuse the conflict.

Since 2002, MONUC – renamed MONUSCO on 1 July 2010 with the “S” standing for “stabilisation” – led a vol-untary demobilisation and repatriation programme with Rwandan Hutu rebels from the FDLR.43 The sensitisation and communication campaign came up against a “hard core” of extremist elements or members who remained sceptical about returning safely to Rwanda. Negotiations with the FDLR leadership had been attempted in 2005 with the assistance of the Sant ‘Egidio community. At the time, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted the lack of will on behalf of the FDLR to disarm their combatants as the primary cause for the failed negotiations.

The Congolese government’s international partners im-plicated in the stabilisation programmes in the DRC reached the conclusion that the best strategy to dismantle the FDLR had to combine an intense sensitisation cam-paign and credible military pressure. The application of such a strategy was contained in the Nairobi Commu-niqué with the possibility for Rwandan rebels who had not participated in the 1994 Genocide to be disarmed and “resettled” temporarily in a Congolese site far from the Rwandan border.44 Overall a consensus formed around the idea that the resolution of the Kivu conflict had to bring an economic and regional dimension.

The agreement between Presidents Kabila and Kagame took up the commitments in the Nairobi Communiqué against the FDLR and included political negotiations with the new CNDP led by civilians close to Bosco. Its imple-mentation was however marked by the priority given to the use of constraint and the dialogue between the DRC, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi was mainly devoted to se-

43 Among the commanders and leaders of the FLDR are officers from the ex-Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) as well as members of the Hutu Interahamwe militia and former civilian leaders of President Habyarimana’s regime who organised the 1994 geno-cide. 44 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., pp. 19-22.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 6 curity cooperation. This agreement was completed by a stabilisation programme and reconstruction for conflict affected areas (Starec).

Two years after the rapprochement, the authority of the Congolese state and the security of the population have still not been re-established in North and South Kivu prov-inces; the FDLR resistance has not been seriously shaken; reconstruction and regional cooperation has hardly pro-gressed; and elements of a global strategy including the intercommunity reconciliation, reinforcement of local in-stitutions and the fight against impunity and corruption have not been put in place by Kinshasa.

A. MILITARY CAMPAIGNS WITHOUT

SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE RESULTS

Since January 2009, Kinshasa has authorised three anti-FDLR operations and one operation against a Ugandan militia in the Kivu. However, the FDLR is still active and carrying out reprisals against the local population; the military integration of certain armed groups has fallen short; around 1.3 million Congolese from Kivu are still dis-placed by violence also committed by government soldiers; and forced disarmament has failed. The continuation of military action was nevertheless justified on the grounds that stopping could worsen the situation. Endless and in-efficient operations continue to be inflicted in the Kivus.

1. The inefficiency of FARDC-led military operations

Three successive anti-FDLR operations have been carried out: “Umoja Wetu”, “Kimia II” and “Amani Leo”. Be-ginning 20 January 2009, the first operation lasted for 35 days and only affected the southern part of North Kivu. The Rwandan army progressed rapidly along the roads in the areas occupied by the FDLR but the quick integration and the deployment of FARDC battalions in the liberated towns proved more difficult.45 “Kimia II” began in March 2009 and was carried out exclusively by FARDC units supported by MONUC: its field of action extended to South Kivu. Kimia II was marked by a dramatic increase in human rights violations committed both by the FDLR and the national army. “Amani Leo” began on 1 January 2010 with a more strict conditionality policy on the support provided by MONUC. In summer 2010, 60,000 FARDC and ten peacekeeping battalions from MONUC were de-ployed in North and South Kivu.46

45 Ibid. This report examines in detail the actions and the results of “Umoja Wetu”. 46 MONUC has six infantry battalions in North Kivu (plus 5,000 soldiers), four infantry battalions in South Kivu (plus 4,000

During 2008, MONUC repatriated on average 50 FDLR combatants per month. This rate increased to 130 in 2009 after the start of anti-FDLR operations then decreased to 82 in the first nine months of 2010.47 The rebel group did suffer combat losses, although less than what was com-municated to the Congolese authorities.48 At the same time, the FDLR carried out new recruitment campaigns of Rwandan Hutu refugees and of many young Congolese.49 In 2010, the monthly figure of deserters gradually dimin-ished, despite strikes in May on the Kibua and Shalio headquarters in North Kivu. Between the start of 2009 and October 2010, MONUC estimated that the strength of FDLR decreased from 6,000-6,500 to 3,000-4,000.50 The core of radical fighters linked to the Rwandan genocide and FDLR’s chain of command in the field was not bro-ken up. The military approach favoured by Kinshasa did not inflict a strategic setback for the FDLR nor did it di-rectly neutralise their main commanders.

The successes concerning the fight against the FDLR op-erations involved Congo’s international partners. The chain of command in Europe was disorganised thanks to the arrest of the rebel group’s major political figures. On 17 November 2009, the group’s president and the vice-president, Ignace Murwanashyaka and Straton Musoni, were arrested by German authorities.51Acting on an arrest warrant delivered on 28 September by the International Criminal Court (ICC), French police arrested the new Vice-President of the FDLR, Callixte Mbarushimana,

soldiers), to which can be added the support units, special forces and helicopter personnel. 47 Throughout 2009, MONUC DDRRR section reported having repatriated 1,564 Rwandan combatants from the FDLR. From January to October 2010, it had repatriated 743 more Rwandan combatants, bringing the total number of Rwandan combatants demobilised from the FDLR to 2,307 since the start of military operations in January 2009. Data established by the DDRRR section in MONUC in October 2010. 48 At the end of the “Umoja Wetu” Operation, General Numbi publicly announced that 153 combatants from the FDLR had been killed, 13 injured, 37 captured and that 103 had deserted. The estimation of losses suffered by the Rwandan rebel group by the FARDC was questioned by MONUC officers during in-terviews with Crisis Group in February 2009. MONUC how-ever did not deny the reports presented by the Congolese mili-tary authorities to illustrate the pretended success of their mili-tary operations. See Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., pp. 19. 49 Even though the FDLR ranks had very few Congolese com-batants until the beginning of military operations, MONUC demobilised 433 in 2009 and 462 in the first nine months of 2010. Data established by the DDRRR section in October 2010. 50 Crisis Group electronic correspondence, MONUC official in Goma, 3 November 2010. 51 See the “Final Report by the UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo”, Security Council, S/2009/603, 23 November 2009.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 7 thirteen days later in Paris.52 Simultaneously, by investing a lot of specialist resources in it, the United Nations Mis-sion supported the demobilisation of six senior FDLR of-ficers in 2010. On 27 September, it repatriated to Rwanda Eli Mutarambirwa, alias Lieutenant-Colonel “Martin Sa-fari”, for example.53 The Disarmament, Demobilisation, Repatriation, Reintegration and Resettlement (DDRRR) section of MONUC initiated and organised the defection of this Commander of the Someka battalion from North Kivu.54

These blows struck against the political network of the FDLR abroad and the defections of several field com-manders still did not provoke internecine struggles within the military leadership of the group in the Kivu or mas-sive desertions – even if a sharp increase in the number of combatants entering into the DDRRR programme was observed in the first week of November 2010, perhaps because of a drop in moral linked to the neutralisation of Callixte or a challenge to the orders for redeployment to North Kivu for rebels hitherto operating in South Kivu.55 These incidents did prove, however, the international community’s heightened involvement in the struggle against the FDLR since the agreement between Kabila and Kagame.

The FDLR were isolated politically by the DRC-Rwanda rapprochement, but they adapted to the new strategic out-look. After the withdrawal to South Kivu in 2009, then to the Maniema and Katanga provinces, they increased alli-ances of convenience with armed Congolese groups hos-tile to the Rwandan regime or those who refused integra-tion.56 Deprived of an alternative solution to repatriation, 52 “Callixte Mbarushimana arrested in France for crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed in the Kivus (Democratic Republic of the Congo)”, Press Release from the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, 11 October 2010. 53 “Rwanda: FDLR Commander defects”, The New Times, 29 September 2010. 54 Mutarambirwa learned that his direct superior, Colonel Paci-fique Ntawunguka, alias “Omega” had planned to assassinate him. Crisis Group electronic correspondence with a MONUSCO official, 31 October 2010. 55 Crisis Group interview, DDRRR officials from MONUC, Kampala, 12 November 2010. At the time of this report’s pub-lication, there is insufficient time to interpret this recent posi-tive development. 56 The FDLR made deals with the Front patriotique pour la libération du Congo (FLPC) of Gad Ngabo, the Alliance des patriotes pour un Congo libre et souverain (APCLS) of Colonel Janvier Buingo, the Mayi Mayi Cheka and the group of Colonel Lafontaine in North Kivu and with the Forces républicaines fédéralistes (FRF) of Michel Rukunda and the Mayi Mayi Ya-kutumba in South Kivu. The head of the military of the FDLR, General Sylvestre Mudachumura, established his headquarters in Lukweti, three kilometres from the headquarters of Colonel

and in the absence of a credible resettlement programme or welcome offer from a foreign country, those who re-mained within the FDLR radicalised as political condi-tions in Rwanda tightened before the Cial elections of August 2010. The restriction of political freedom was immediately exploited by FDLR propaganda to justify and discredit voluntary repatriation.57

At the end of June 2010, in consultation with Kampala but without prior planning with MONUC, Kinshasa inter-vened against the Forces alliées démocratiques (ADF) which had settled since the mid-90s on the Ugandan-DRC border, in the Rwenzori area.58 Shortly after the launch of the “Rwenzori” offensive, the ADF dispersed their com-batants to areas difficult to access from Oicha and in the mountains of Rwenzori. An ambush on a lorry on a road leading to the town of Beni caused fifteen civilian casual-ties on 27 July 2010, four days before a field visit by the Congolese Minister of Defence, Mwando Nsimba, and the Chief of the Defence Staff of FARDC, General Didier Etumba. On 7 September 7, the Congolese army launched the second phase of the operation and after 72 hours of fighting announced that they had killed 29 rebels.59

In reality, FARDC suffered heavy losses. A United Nations specialist observed that the discovery of a well-stocked arms and provisions cache, as well as the tactical superior-ity of the ADF over the Congolese National Army, sug-gested that the rebel group had grown stronger since the last military campaign against them at the end of 2005.60

FARDC were free to conduct operations planned with MONUC or to carry them out unilaterally when the super-vision of the peacekeepers proved to be too burdensome. The carte blanche given by Kinshasa to the FARDC did not hand them a decisive victory. The Congolese troops still did not have sufficient logistics to accompany their campaign. The majority of the former rebels who had re-joined the army did not have adequate training and their

Janvier. Since autumn 2010, more and more CNDP soldiers, sometimes Tutsi, have deserted FARDC to rejoin groups asso-ciated with the FDLR. 57 Crisis Group interview, DDRRR official from MONUC, En-tebbe, July 2010. 58 Sometimes reference has been made to ADF/Nalu, the second part of which refers to the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda. This is a rebel movement of Ugandan Bakonjo tribe formed at the beginning of the 1990s against Museveni’s re-gime. Even though the leaders of Nalu in 2004 were associated with ADF, almost all of their combatants now have since left the group targeted Operation “Rwenzori”. ADF presentation by MONUC Force Commander. 59 “Beni: poursuite des affrontements entre FARDC et ADF/ Nalu, 29 rebelles tués”, Radio Okapi, 9 September 2010. 60 Crisis Group interview, DDRRR official, MONUC, Kampala, 12 November 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 8 military wages – when they were not misappropriated – were not enough to provide for their families who accom-panied them in their deployments. The FARDC were not able to defeat the rebels who were operating in an environ-ment familiar to them. This assessment was known even when the military strategy was implemented, although the vital reform of the Congolese army, announced at the start of the transition period had still not begun.61

The anti-FDLR campaign had allowed a number of offi-cers to increase their own personal wealth. In April 2009, the officers recently integrated into the FARDC began to receive command bonuses. Until reform of the payment system, carried out at the end of 2009 by the European Union, some new officers siphoned off the salaries of their soldiers. In 2010, it was established that financial aid granted to the dependents of deployed soldiers did not reach its beneficiaries.62 In February 2009, MONUC and FARDC within the framework of “Kimia II” planned to expel the FDLR from the Kivu mines to deprive them of their resources. It was the FARDC battalions who from then on took advantage of their presence in these mining areas.63 The house-building and petrol stations in the large towns in the Kivu and on the Sake-Masisi axis bear wit-ness to the profit made by the Congolese commanders.64

2. Cost of military failure for the population

Several hundred thousand Congolese were caught in a cy-cle of displacement and return, depriving them of regular access to their livelihoods or to humanitarian assistance. Since 2008, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) at 800,000 in North Kivu and 266,000 in South Kivu.65 On 30 September 2010, the Of-fice for the Coordination of Humanitarian Aid (OCHA) counted 590,000 displaced in North Kivu and 676,000 in

61 See Crisis Group briefing, Congo: A Stalled Democratic Agenda, op. cit., pp. 14-16. 62 In December and in January 2009, a few tens of millions of dollars were given to Numbi to convince the CNDP officers to rejoin Bosco. Some civilians also benefited from the money. Several transfers were made by Kinshasa to finance their sensi-tization campaigns run by their traditional leaders. Crisis Group interviews, FARDC and CNDP officers, Goma, February-April 2009, and Kinshasa, July 2010. 63 See Ruben de Koning, “Controlling Conflict Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, SIPRI Policy Brief, July 2010. 64 “After MONUC, Should MONUSCO Continue to Support Congolese Military Campaigns?”, Crisis Group blog, On the African Peacebuilding Agenda, 19 July 2010, www.crisisgroup. org. See also Fidel Bafilemba, “Field Dispatch: Conflict Miner-als Windfall for Armed Forces in Eastern Congo”, Enough Pro-ject, 4 August 2010, www.enoughproject.org. 65 See “DRC Fact Sheet”, UNHCR, 5 February 2008.

South Kivu.66 The total number of IDPs has therefore risen across the Kivu despite the promises of the DRC-Rwandan rapprochement and because of the military ap-proach taken against the rebel groups. Since January 2009, many families have fled the fighting. The “Rwenzori” of-fensive launched on 25 June 2010 for example caused 90,000 extra IDPs in less than 30 days.67 Some families have been able to return to their place of origin thanks to a change in the militia’s operating areas. Between Janu-ary 2009 and September 2010, 538,000 IDPs from North Kivu and 192,000 IDPs from South Kivu returned to their homes.68 Almost half of those who returned to North Kivu went to Masisi and Rutshuru territories in the areas controlled by the CNDP’s parallel administration.69 In a 9 July 2010 report, the UN Secretary-General recognised the role that military operations and human rights viola-tions had played in the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the Kivu.70

The coercive approach lead to a deterioration of civilian security stemming from a resurgence in brutality by the FDLR and from criminal behaviour attributed to the FARDC. Since the departure of Rwandan troops at the end of “Umoja Wetu”, the leaders of FDLR opted for a policy of reprisals against populations accusing them of treason.71 Through the distribution of threatening letters and village attacks – like the one in Luofu in April 2009 where 250 houses were set alight – the FDLR targeted two

66 See “Mouvements de population au 30 septembre 2010”, OCHA, 11 October 2010. 67 See “Briefing humanitaire en RDC do 07 au 13 août 2010”, OCHA, 13 August 2010. 68 See the South Kivu monthly humanitarian report established by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Support (OCHA) for the month of September 2010 and “République Démocratique du Congo: mouvements de population de janvier 2009 à septembre 2010, Province du Nord Kivu”, OCHA, 13 October 2010, available on http://rdc-humanitaire.net. 69 The six historical camps sheltering 60,000 displaced around Goma were closed in September 2009. Almost all of their oc-cupants were members of the Hutu community and they went to Masisi and Rutshuru, sometimes to rejoin one of the forty provisional transit camps. The decision to close the camps gave the false impression to numerous VIP delegations spending only a few days in North Kivu, that it was the result of an over-all improvement of the situation of the population. The closure of the camps in Goma was a political act by President Kabila, who announced it himself with a megaphone to the displaced during his stay in the town at the beginning of August 2009. Crisis Group interview, United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) official, Goma, 19 April 2010. 70 See the “United Nations Secretary-General’s Report on Chil-dren and Armed Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, Security Council, S/2010/669, 9 July 2010, p. 3, point 10. 71 See the “Final Report of the UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo”, 23 November 2009, op. cit., p. 24, point 93.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 9 objectives: to impose their conditions on the Congolese civilians and to obtain from the international community a stay on their offensives for humanitarian reasons.72 Dur-ing the same period, the FARDC committed violent acts against the Congolese civilians and the Hutu-Rwandan refugees.73 In 2009, the United Nations Population Fund counted more than 8,000 cases of sexual violence in the East of Congo that it primarily attributed to the FDLR and the FARDC.74

The conditions for humanitarian organisations working with vulnerable populations had also deteriorated. During the first six months of 2010, they were the targets of 120 acts of aggression, a two-fold increase in security inci-dents compared to the same period in 2009.75

In summer 2010, the FDLR continued its policy of repri-sals and domination through fear. In South Kivu, between 2 and 8 August, the FDLR attacked several localities in Shabunda territory, destroying 1,230 houses, raping at least 130 civilians (amongst them around 20 girls below fifteen years old) and causing the displacement of 38,000 people.76 In North Kivu, between 30 July and 2 August, FDLR elements associated with the Mayi Mayi Cheka took con-trol of fifteen villages in the Luvungi area, in Walikale territory. Without firing a shot, and without interruption from MONUSCO patrols, they carried out a planned and methodical campaign of sexual violence against at least 250 villagers. On 13 August, the FDLR burned 350 houses near to Ntoto, 70km from Walikale town, and captured some civilians as porters.77

On 8 September 2010 the Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Atul Khare, explained to the Security Council that, although the primary responsibility of protecting civilians and stopping mass rapes rests first and foremost on the Congolese State, these attacks repre-sent a failure for MONUSCO.78 In other words, eighteen

72 From April 2009, the leaders of Luofu, Kalete, Kanya-bayonga and Kibua received leaflets signed by FDLR officers encouraging them to surrender under the threat of retaliation. 73 “You Will Be Punished. Attacks On Civilians in Eastern Congo”, Human Rights Watch, 13 December 2009. 74 “More than 8,000 women raped last year by fighters in East-ern DRC”, UN News Centre, 9 February 2010, www.unfpa.org/ public/cache/offonce/news/pid/4852. 75 32nd Report of the Secretary-General on MONUSCO, 8 Oc-tober 2010, op. cit., p. 7, point 30. 76 “Bulletin d’information humanitaire, province du Sud Kivu”, OCHA, 31 August 2010. 77 “UN e-mail shows early warning of Congo rapes”, The New York Times, 31 August 2010. See also “Walikale: les FDLR frappent à Budere”, Radio Okapi, 19 August 2010. 78 “Preliminary Report of the Fact-finding Mission of the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office into Mass Rapes and Other Human Rights Violations by a Coalition of Armed Groups along

months of military campaigns against the rebel groups has not provided security to the population in Kivu.

The FARDC contributed significantly to the increase in insecurity. In June 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, revealed that the integration process and the launch of “Kimia II” had coincided with a strong rise in the number of human rights violations by FARDC.79 In 2010, a wave of criminality affected Beni and Butembo towns in the Grand Nord of North Kivu. Since March 2010, civil society has accused officers of the national army and asked for demilitarising the cities.80 The consequences of over-militarisation of towns in terms of criminality are similar in Rutshuru, Walikale, and Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu where the International Bank of Africa in Congo was robbed by soldiers on 26 June 2010.81

Robbery, looting, acts of violence and killings are more frequent since the launch of operation “Rwenzori” against the ADF. The deployment of new government troops in an area largely populated by the Nande community feeds intercommunity tension already fuelled by political ma-nipulation. Local economic operators have even them-selves provided fuel and supplies to the Congolese army in a bid to reduce the levels of violence committed by the soldiers and to give them the means to protect the popula-tion against ADF reprisals.

Despite strong criticism aimed at the international commu-nity, Kinshasa remained very tolerant towards the criminal behaviour of the military personnel. The integration of former rebels was negotiated under the promise of an of-ficial amnesty approved by Parliament. The 7 May 2009 law grants amnesty for “acts of war” committed by Kivu militia between 2003 and the beginning of 2009. For the Kibua-Mpofi Road in Walikale, North Kivu, from 30 July to 2 August 2010”. One of the leaders of the Mayi Mayi Cheka, Lt Col Mayele, was finally arrested in October 2010. 79 See the 28th Report of the Secretary-General on MONUC, Security Council, S/2009/335, 30 June 2009, p. 13, point 55. 80 Some civil society organisations and influential members of the Nande community immediately denounced the responsibil-ity of the CNDP commanders for the violence. See “Insécurité toujours grandissante dans les villes de Butembo et de Beni au Nord Kivu”, Groupe d’associations de défense des droits de l’homme et de la paix (GADHOP), document N03/2010, May-July 2010. “Les FARDC au premier rang des violations des droits de l’homme en territoire de Lubero et de Beni”, Press Release from the Centre of Research on the Environment, De-mocracy and Human Rights (CREDHO), 19 April 2010. See also “Situation sécuritaire de la ville de Butembo et suite du meurtre de l’étudiant Mwanazaire”, civil society committee in Butembo, 11 July 2010. 81 Bulletin d’information humanitaire, province du Nord Kivu”, OCHA, 31 August 2010. See also “Bukavu: cambriolage en plein jour à la Biac, un mort et trois blessés”, Radio Okapi, 26 June 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 10 purely legal reasons, “war crimes” committed by certain CNDP leaders are excluded.82 The commanders of the eighteen brigades of the national army, responsible for the sacking of Goma and Kanyabayonga during the crisis at the end of 2008, were also spared by the military judges.83 For the Congolese authorities, the official or in-formal amnesty is the price to pay for CNDP integration.84

Similarly, the Congolese authorities remained tolerant of the recruitment of child soldiers. 1,235 new cases were registered in 2009, mainly in North Kivu and in Kalehe territory to the north of South Kivu. FARDC accounted for 40 per cent of the recruitments.85 On several occasions in the summer of 2009, MONUC teams trying to extricate minors serving as soldiers were threatened by FARDC. Forced or voluntarily re-enrolment of former child sol-diers was still observed by MONUSCO and NGOs, in spite of constituting a war crime86, and while the govern-ment is implementing a World Bank-funded national pro-gramme of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration mainly aimed at child soldiers.

3. Powerless MONUC

Resolution 1856 of December 2008 mandated MONUC to support the integrated FARDC brigades trained by them for jointly planned operations that respected interna-tional law.87 During the preparations for “Umoja Wetu”, the UN mission had deliberately been kept away.88 On 16 January 2009, Bosco who was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), left the CNDP and rejoined the FARDC in Goma with the

82 Bosco and Sultani Makenga have in common that they have both personally supervised civilian massacres. Congolese judges ascertained Makenga’s responsibility in the Burumba massacre of March 2007. The United Nations inquiry into the massacre of 67 villagers from the village of Kiwanja in November 2008 revealed the responsibilities of Bosco and Zimurinda. See “Consolidated Report on Investigations conducted by the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO) into grave hu-man rights abuses committed in Kiwanja, North Kivu, in No-vember 2008”, 7 September 2009. 83 Ibid. In November 2008, a stampede of government soldiers looted, raped and summarily executed in the town of Goma and in Kanyabayonga area. 84 “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights and the High Commission activities in DRC”, Human Rights Council, A/HCR/13/64, 28 January 2010, point 46. 85 “Report of the United Nations Secretary-General on children and armed conflict”, op. cit., p. 4, point 17. 86 Article 8 on the definition of War Crimes from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 87 See United Nations Security Council Resolution 1856, S/RES/1856 (2008), 22 December 2009, point 3.G. 88 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., p. 4.

rank of General.89 The new army units were constituted with former rebels who had not been trained by MONUC, some of whom were suspected of war crimes.90 The con-ditions of engagement stipulated in Resolution 1856 were therefore not fulfilled. Although a strict reading of its mandate prevented MONUC from participating in the plan conceived by Numbi and Kabarebe, a political deci-sion was taken to associate the peacekeepers with it.

The head of Mission, Alan Doss, explained that MONUC’s participation reduced the negative impact on the popula-tion.91 The presence of peacekeepers at the operations centre theoretically gave the UN access to the planning stages to anticipate negative impacts on civilians. In ex-change for UN logistics support, Doss expected a special effort from the Congolese to improve the behaviour of their troops on the ground. From 20 January 2009, MONUC supported FARDC with logistical support: transporting soldiers, evacuating the injured and providing fuel, water and rations. Support fire from its attack helicopters was also provided under strict conditions. In this context in 2009, MONUC put in place a range of measures designed to protect the population and improve the behaviour of the Congolese soldiers. MONUC planning officers were quickly dispatched to the operations centre. Egyptian Special Forces, troops and additional helicopters arrived in the Kivus at the end of 2009. In eighteen months, the number of simultaneous deployments of peacekeepers to the hotspot areas of the two provinces in Kivu went from twenty to more than 70. Through the support of the United Kingdom, the DDRRR section in charge of FDLR demo-bilisation was significantly reinforced with human resources and material.92 To improve the quality of information re-ceived on the ground and to react quickly, MONUC cre-ated mixed Joint Protection Teams (JPT), with civilian liaison and interpreters (CL/I), rapid intervention cells

89 This arrest warrant was issued under seal on 22 August 2006 and made public on 28 April 2008 for crimes committed in Ituri Province. He is accused by the ICC of recruitment of child sol-diers and civilian massacres. In April 2005, the DRC authori-ties had emitted an arrest warrant against him. Bosco is also suspected of the murder of humanitarian workers and MONUC personnel. He rejoined CNDP under Nkunda in North Kivu in 2006 to become Chief of Defence Staff of the organisation. 90 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., pp. 4-5. 91 Alan Doss intervention at a round table organised by interna-tional NGOs, New York, 9 April 2009. 92 Department for International Development (DFID), the Brit-ish development agency put at the disposition of the DDRRR programme civilian-military specialists and fifteen mobile ra-dios to diffuse the sensitisation messages in remote areas in Eastern DRC. At the end of 2010, there were 157 staff working in the DDRRR section.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 11 and a protection working group in Kinshasa.93 However, the UN peacekeepers who spoke neither French nor Swa-hili still encountered difficulties in interacting with the local population.94 Planning and coordination with Con-golese local authorities also remained dysfunctional.

From April 2009, local and international NGOs warned the United Nations about the scale of human rights viola-tion committed by the FARDC taking part in “Kimia II”. In particular they brought to light the Shalio massacre of 27 April 2009 carried out by troops under the orders of Colonel Innocent Zimurinda.95 It took until 1 November 2009 and the visit to the DRC of Assistant Secretary-General for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Alain le Roy, for MONUC to announce the withdrawal of logistical support for the battalion implicated in this event.

The logistics involvement of MONUC was also conten-tious. Some United Nations officials returning from the Kivus strongly pleaded for logistics support to be sus-pended while the Congolese government, the head of MONUC and some Security Council member countries insisted on its continuation. The latter group believed that the integration of the CNDP depended on it and pointed out the increase in the rate of repatriation of the FDLR ex-combatants.96 Before the annual renewal of MONUC’s mandate on 23 December 2009, it was decided that the peacekeepers would continue to participate in the military campaign.

During 2009, and after being alerted to the risks of legal co-responsibility for the crimes committed by MONUC –assisted units, the United Nations developed a condition-ality policy for their support. Their initial intention was to reduce the number of abuses committed by FARDC without stopping the anti-FDLR offensive. MONUC pro-posed to the Congolese authority’s additional trainings to better prepare soldiers serving in Kivu.97 On 17 December 2009, the new operational guidelines signed by MONUC and FARDC did not resume its measures in the long run. On the contrary it planned for putting aside leaders of bat-

93 Crisis Group interviews, Civil Affairs and Human Rights of-ficers, Bukavu, 25 May 2010, Kinshasa, 29 June 2010. 94 “UN e-mail shows early warning of Congo rapes”, The New York Times, op. cit. 95 The Congolese government admitted on 16 October 2009 to having been informed but explained that they had taken the de-cision not to sanction this former CNDP officer. See “You Will Be Punished. Attacks on Civilians in Eastern Congo”, Human Rights Watch, op. cit., pp. 130-137. 96 Crisis Group interviews, MONUC officials, Kinshasa, No-vember 2009, Goma, April 2010. See Thirtieth Report of the Secretary-General on MONUC, S/2009/623, 4 December, p. 3, point 9. 97 Crisis Group interview, MONUC official, Kinshasa, 29 June 2010.

talions suspected of violent acts and a reduction from 16,000 to 1,600 in the number of Congolese soldiers re-ceiving support. It insisted on joint planning. From then on, the conditionality policy which entered into force dur-ing the launch of operation “Amani Leo”, did not con-tribute to making FARDC more efficient but rather served to legally protect MONUC.

The conditions accepted by the Congolese government for 2010 were immediately bypassed. In South Kivu, dur-ing the first four months of the year, 25 joint military ac-tions were undertaken while 74 others were carried out unilaterally by FARDC without the knowledge of the peacekeepers.98 In May, United Nations experts indicated that ongoing military operations could make the situation more dangerous for the FDLR fighters who wanted to hand over their weapons and be repatriated.99 Until July, in the organigrams established by FARDC and accessible by MONUC, war criminals still figured in command posts for Operation “Amani Leo”.100 MONUC had no in-fluence on a campaigning national army renowned for its grave level of disorganisation, corruption and impunity. The credibility of the peacekeeping mission was greatly undermined.

4. Failure of integration and an increase in activities by Congolese armed groups

At the time of the Goma Peace Conference in January 2008, 21 Congolese armed groups from Kivu were recognised by the government. Initially, a large majority accepted to participate in the integration process launched in 2009.

The benefits granted to former CNDP commanding offi-cers, the lack of attention given to the integrated Mayi Mayi and the difficulties of imposing authority from army re-

98 Presentation given by a MONUC officer at the headquarters of “Amani Leo” to humanitarian actors, Goma, 21 April 2010. 99 See “Interim Report by the UN Group of Experts on the De-mocratic Republic of Congo”, Security Council S/2010/252, 25 May 2010, p. 10, point 40. 100 On the “Amani Leo” organigram for South Kivu dated 2 July 2010, Makenga – who has been found guilty in absentia by Congolese magistrates for the Buramba massacre in March 2007 – appears as second in command for operations and in charge of information. On the “Amani Leo” organigram for North Kivu dated 5 April 2010, Zimurinda appears as 23rd Sector Com-mander. Several other senior officers strongly suspected of war crimes are in charge of “Amani Leo” operations, but are below the Battalion Commander grade and are therefore excluded from the shelving required by MONUC. In October 2010, Bosco de-clared to the international press that he was playing a coordinat-ing role in the military operations which were underway, “Congo war indicted says direct UN-back ops”, Reuters, 6 October 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 12 gional headquarters on mixed groups ultimately led to the failure of attempts to integrate all the Congolese ex-rebels.

In order to defend the interests of the particular communi-ties against the CNDP, the Forces républicaines fédéralistes (FRF) and a faction of the Coalition des patriotes résistants congolais (PARECO) refuse to join FARDC. The Banya-mulenge militia of the FRF operate on the upper plateaus of Fizi territory in South Kivu and its head, Michel Ru-kunda, conditioned their demobilisation to the demands of the inhabitants of this region. Although they are Ban-yarwandan, the Banyamulenge are hostile to the Rwandan regime and refuse to be associated with the Congolese Tutsi community. The FRF protected the FDLR fleeing offensives and shared the taxes they had collected with them.101 In North Kivu, the former head of the Hunde branch of PARECO, Janvier Karairi, saw in the DRC-Rwandan rapprochement an “extermination plan of people native to the Masisi, Rutshuru and Walikale territories”.102 The Alliance des patriotes pour un Congo libre et sou-verain (APCLS), which he currently commands and which collaborates closely with the FDLR in the west of Masisi, is supported by the rural Hunde population fearful for their land.

Other armed group were reconstituted after having inte-grated into the Congolese army. The Yakutumba Mayi Mayi rejoined the rebellion in November 2009 after a con-flict with another brigade of FARDC in the Baraka zone in South Kivu. The Yakutumba group coordinates its ac-tions with the FDLR battalions posted near gold mines in the south of Fizi territory. It counts on support from the Bembe community. In North Kivu, around 300 Mayi Mayi Kifuafua fighters integrated into the FARDC in February 2010, but the Congolese authorities neglected these new troops without any real local influence. Left without su-pervision and without income, many returned home or allied with the FDLR. The first mass desertion of former CNDP soldiers was recorded at the end of 2009. Lieuten-ant Colonel Emmanuel Nsengiyumva, a Tutsi officer, left his position in Masisi taking with him the FARDC battal-ion he was commanding. He explained to his CNDP in-terlocutors that he would continue fighting against Kin-shasa alongside the FDLR and the non-integrated Mayi Mayi.

Financial motives are at the heart of many rebel groups’ strategies. In South Kivu, Kyatende Ditman proclaimed himself General in April 2010. In Shabunda territory he organised, a militia along with an ex-combatant Mayi Mayi integrated in the national army and attacked the

101 “Uvira: les FRF coalisent avec les FDLR dans les Hauts pla-teaux”, Radio Okapi, 5 August 2009. 102 See the press releases of the Alliance des patriotes pour un Congo libre et souverain (APCLS), Buboa, 6 to 12 January 2009.

FARDC to take control of Moba gold mine. “Kyat” was finally arrested in July 2010 for “participation in an insur-rectionary movement”.103 In North Kivu, the Mayi Mayi Cheka has no known community claims. Many are desert-ers from the 85th FARDC brigade, which exploited the tin ore (cassiterite) Bisie mine until it was replaced in Janu-ary 2009 by the 1st integrated brigade led by ex-CNDP officers.104 They cooperated with FDLR to intercept a share of the income drawn from the Walikale miners transiting by the road which they controlled. On several occasions, they pillaged the mining city of Mubi. Twice during sum-mer 2010, the Cheka group hijacked the private aircraft supplying miners in the area and took their crew hostage.105

5. An aborted resettlement plan

The resettlement of the Hutu rebels that did not take part in the 1994 genocide was part of the solutions outlined in the Nairobi Communiqué in November 2007. By offering an alternative to forced repatriation it ensured that the FDLR combatants would not be forced into a situation that may alienate them from future reconciliation efforts.106 MONUC collaborated during the first half of 2010 with President Kabila’s security advisors to re-launch the re-settlement option, and create security conditions for the host Congolese population and for those FDLR who accepted the offer. International funding was also discussed.107 On 15 May 2010, the Congolese head of state confirmed that military operations would continue, but announced that from then on his government proposed to those FDLR combatants who handed over their arms, resettlement in a Congolese province far from Rwanda.108 However, the UN organisations involved in the preparation of the reset-tlement were pushed to one side.

At the beginning of June 2010, the Congolese NGO, Ecu-menical Program for Peace, Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation (PAREC) led by Pastor Ngoy Mulunda, received funding from the presidency to transport 350

103 “Bukavu, début du procès des présumés insurgés de Sha-bunda”, Digital Congo, 18 September 2010, www.digitalcongo. net/article/70181. 104 See “Final Report by the UN Group of Experts on the De-mocratic Republic of Congo”, 23 November 2009, op. cit., p. 50, point 201. 105 “Indian pilot freed after Congo hostage ordeal”, Reuters, 3 August 2010. 106 Crisis Group report, Congo: A Global Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, op. cit., pp. 20-23. 107 Crisis Group interview, MONUC official and FARDC offi-cer, Goma, May 2010, Kinshasa, July 2010. 108 Report of the Security council mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 13 to 16 May 2010, document S/2010/ 288, 30 June 2010, p. 3.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 13 FDLR combatants and their dependants to Katanga.109 The Katangan population had not been informed by the Minister of Defence who was subsequently questioned in Parliament. MONUC did not have access to these com-batants, but the information received in Kivu indicated that the majority of the 190 combatants identified by PAREC were not from the FDLR. Some belonged to a group of bandits set up in 2005 by Soki, a young FDLR dissident. Others, according to comments in the press by the leader of the PAREC programme, were civilian Rwandan refu-gees.110 Many seemed to just be Congolese hoping to gain financially from this process.111

Some Rwandans settled by PAREC in the Kisenge-Manganèse former refugee camp complained about living conditions and fled by the end of the June 2010. The gov-ernor of Katanga had to intercede with the United Nations to request that they assume responsibility for 37 fugitives who had been intercepted. On 17 August 2010, PAREC returned 58 people to Rwanda outside of the MONUC, World Bank and UNHCR repatriation programme.112 The Rwandan authorities eventually noticed that almost half of these people were in actual fact Congolese.113 During the first week of November, MONUC took responsibility for 83 additional fugitives while between 100 and 150 people are still being held against their will in Katanga.114 The resettlement option, which is the key complementary component of forced disarmament, was temporarily dis-credited by the reported failure of PAREC.

B. UNFINISHED POLITICAL SETTLEMENT

After the ousting of Nkunda at the end of January 2009, a new political leadership close to Kigali and Bosco was installed at the head of the CNDP to continue the negotia-

109 PAREC is led by Pastor Ngoy Mulunda. Originally from Ka-tanga, Pastor Mulunda is a founding member of the president’s party – Parti du peuple pour la reconstruction et la démocratie (PPRD) – and a family friend of the Kabilas. 110 “Nouvelle vague de 263 FDLR au Katanga, inquiétudes au Lualaba”, Radio Okapi, 8 June 2010. 111 Crisis Group interviews, Kinshasa, June 2010. 112 This programme has functioned since 2002 and included identification measures and long-term monitoring. One of its objectives is to ensure transparency of the treatment of ex-FDLR combatants once they are in Rwanda. Minimal security guaran-tees are given to potential demobilisation candidates influenced by the propaganda of the FDLR command. 113 The 26 people recognised as Congolese by the Rwandan Re-integration Commission all escaped after a week in Rwanda and vanished. See “Rwanda: 26 Congolese among FDLR re-turnees”, The New Times, 25 August 2010; and “Les 26 ex-FDLR présentés comme des Congolais se sont evadé du camp de Mutobi”, Radio Okapi, 1 September 2010. 114 Crisis Group interview, MONUC official, Kampala, 11 No-vember 2010.

tions started a month earlier. As the essential aspect was the respect of the secret agreement made between Kabila and Kagame, the Congolese government and the CNDP negotiated in a climate of mutual suspicion and did not address the issue of the roots of intercommunity tensions in their discussions.115 However, their rapprochement worried communities threatened by the new military alli-ance and by the political and territorial consequences of the repatriation of refugees. Kinshasa still did not control large sections of Kivu on the borders with its three neigh-bours and certain areas in the provinces of North and South Kivu were still conducive to foreign rebel activity.

1. A fool’s game between the CNDP and the Congolese government

In accordance with his agreement with Kagame, Kabila accepted the integration of CNDP officers into the FARDC in influential posts in the anti-FDLR operations chain of command. At the beginning of 2009, 5,800 CNDP fighters, out of the 7,000 registered, rejoined the ranks of the na-tional army.116 More than 450 of them later disclosed their Rwandan nationality to MONUC in order to be repatri-ated to their country.117 On 4 February, the new president of the CNDP, Désiré Kamanzi,118 announced the de facto transformation of the politico-military movement into a political party.119 This was included in the 23 March peace agreement signed by the government and the CNDP and brokered by the international community.120

115 These roots are explored in the Crisis Group report, Congo: Bringing Peace to North Kivu, op. cit. 116 See Twenty-Seventh Special Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, S/2009/160, 27 March 2009, p. 2. 117 During the first eight months of 2009, these Rwandan sol-diers from the CNDP were repatriated by the DDRRR Section of MONUC. During the previous conflict in December 2007, MONUC assessed CNDP strength at around 2,500 combatants. CNDP’s doubling in size in one year can be explained by re-cruitment in eastern Congo, but also by the admission of Rwan-dan citizens into its ranks during the crisis at the end of 2008. 118 Bosco could not fill the position that Nkunda had occupied because his arrest warrant from the ICC stopped him from mov-ing outside Kivu or negotiating with international representa-tives. Kamanzi was therefore designated. See later section with details about his links with Rwanda. 119 He made a series of requests copied from the list of require-ments that Nkunda presented in October 2006. “Déclaration politique du CNDP”, Goma, 4 February 2009. 120 See “Accords de paix entre le gouvernement et le CNDP”, Goma, 23 March 2009. International facilitation was composed of former heads of state Olusegun Obasanjo and Benjamin Mkapa. In the same capacity as the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General Obasanjo, the former Tanzanian president Mkapa has been mandated since Novem-ber 2008 by the African Union and the International Confer-

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 14 In the agreement drawn up on the model of the Act of Engagement from the July 2008 Goma Conference, Kin-shasa committed mainly to free prisoners and to take re-sponsibility for CNDP war victims, to promulgate an am-nesty law and to prepare for the return of Congolese refu-gees from neighbouring countries. Kabila accepted the principle of CNDP’s participation in the country’s politi-cal affairs and agreed to the creation of a national recon-ciliation mechanism. In exchange, CNDP pledged to in-tegrate its military into the Congolese security forces. The group agreed to re-establish state authority in the areas of North Kivu it governed. The CNDP also proposed a new territorial organisation and a revision of the electoral law. A 90-day implementation calendar was annexed to the agreement. The normalisation of the CNDP without Nkunda marked the official end of the Congolese rebel-lion in Kivu and an apparent political victory for Kabila.

During the negotiations, the CNDP leaders kept in mind two tacit commitments: 1) former CNDP fighters would not be redeployed outside of Kivu before the neutralisa-tion of the FDLR; 2) their officers would obtain ministe-rial posts in the national and North Kivu provincial gov-ernments. Other Congolese militia from Kivu, like those from PARECO, eventually acquiesced to the agreement. In exchange for the recognition of the ranks that they attrib-uted to themselves during the rebellion, they also agreed to transform their organisations into political parties.

At the time of the implementation of the 23 March 2009 agreement, Eugène Serufuli considered that he had the support of the head of state to institutionalise “Rwando-phonie”. Serufuli had worked since December 2008 to reassure sceptical members of the Hutu community of Bosco’s intentions. A letter which reached the embassies in Kinshasa around this time is attributed to him. This let-ter promoted the division of North Kivu province into two separate political entities entrusted respectively to the Nande group and a Hutu-Tutsi alliance.121 With CNDP’s normalisation, a legitimate and powerful Tutsi partner was identified to promote common Hutu-Tutsi interests.

Eighteen months later, neither the DRC government, nor the CNDP had completely respected their commitments.122 This time, Kinshasa had freed 400 prisoners, passed an amnesty law and officially transferred US$160,000 to the ence on the Great Lakes Region to facilitate negotiations be-tween Kinshasa and the CNDP. 121 “Regional division of the North Kivu province: a leading so-lution to the problems in eastern DRC”, attributed to Eugène Serufuli, Kinshasa, dated 2 December 2008. 122 The same posture could be seen with the 2007 Mixage proc-ess – an initial agreement on CNDP integration into the FARDC – and then with the peace agreement of the 2008 Goma Peace Conference, prior to their respective failures. Crisis Group re-port, Congo: Bringing Peace to North Kivu, op. cit., pp. 7-10.

CNDP for them to take charge of those wounded during the war. On the other hand CNDP had limited access to the political arenas. At a provincial level, they had only one post (the provincial minister responsible for justice, human rights and community reinsertion). At the national level, they received nothing, despite assurances given by Kabila during a meeting in Kinshasa on 17 April 2009. The parliamentary group of the presidential majority had refused to accept that a provincial party without elected officials could obtain national ministers; instead it pro-posed posts in public enterprises and the territorial ad-ministration of North Kivu. Considering that all the de-mands had been met, the Congolese government did not renew the mandate given to the National Committee for the Follow-up of 23 March Agreements, which expired in May 2010.

At the same time, the CNDP did not show any motivation to give up its parallel system of administration or its sys-tem of taxation on the Masisi, Rutshuru and Nyiragongo populations. At the time of integration in January 2009, the CNDP had already officially lifted all taxes.123Yet in May 2009, lorry drivers blocked the roads and protested against their continuation.124 The CNDP then announced the dismantling of its illegal administration on 14 June 2010, when five of its members were nominated by the government to administration posts in Masisi.125 How-ever, on 30 July, Masisi civil society addressed an open letter to the president, complaining the CNDP had reiniti-ated its parallel administration and expressing frustration at the decision to entrust the administration of the terri-tory to former rebels that had committed crimes.126 On 25 August, the president of the Masisi civil society, Syl-vestre Bwira, was kidnapped and severely beaten during a week by unknown people in military uniform.127 On 31 August, OCHA observed that illegal taxes are still levied daily on a road controlled by the CNDP.128

123 “Vainqueur Mayala et Bsoco Ntaganda à Mushake, fief du CNDP”, Radio Okapi, 16 January 2009. 124 “Masisi: le CNDP perçoit toujours des taxes”, Radio Okapi, 1 May 2009. 125 “Masisi: le CNDP met fin à l’administration parallèle, le gouvernement s’en réjouit”, Radio Okapi, 26 June 2010. In a press release on 31 March 2010 the CNDP had already an-nounced the raising of its blockades and illegal tax collecting in North Kivu. In their 25 May 2010 report, the UN experts con-tradicted this news. “Interim Report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, op. cit., p. 9, point 36. 126 “Demande urgente de la délocalisation de tous les éléments issus des groups armés dans le territoire de Masisi”, Civil So-ciety/ Forces vives coordination territoriale de Masisi, open let-ter to President Kabila, 30 July 2010. 127 “Violences au Congo: militaires à nouveau accusés”, La Libre Belgique, 1 September 2010. 128 “Bulletin d’information humanitaire, province du Nord Ki-vu”, OCHA, 31 August 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 15 Another violation was revealed in August 2009 during the second meeting of the 23 March Goma Peace Agreement Follow-up Committee. Ex-CNDP combatants who are now senior FARDC officers continued to take part in meetings of the new political party in contradiction with the principle of military neutrality.129 Kabila, who was in Goma in August to meet with Kagame, brought up this issue with the CNDP leadership. It was also raised during the follow-up committee in December 2009 to no avail. In May 2010, the CNDP flag was still flying near to mili-tary positions in Mushake and Kitchanga. In their internal reports, MONUC estimated that the CNDP exerted a wide control of the largest part of “Petit Nord” in North Kivu.130 The parallel administration and civilian-military chain of command of the CNDP were maintained despite its formal integration into the Congolese institutions.

On 6 September 2010, Kabila went to Kigali to attend the investiture of Kagame at the start of his second presiden-tial term. The two leaders met several times to discuss their partnership. On his way back to Kinshasa, president Kabila announced his decision to freeze the exploitation of minerals in Kivu and indicated that in Goma the mili-tary integrated into FARDC since January 2008 had to prepare for redeployment to other Congolese provinces. This decision seemed to correspond to a request from the Rwandan president to move CNDP leaders suspected of talking to Rwandan dissidents away from the border.

On 23 September 2010, some officers linked to the CNDP addressed a memorandum to the president criticising the government for failing to honour certain key commitments from the 23 March 2009 Peace Agreement. They requested the president to halt movements of troops outside the Kivu before the agreement was completely implemented, including the recognition of ranks.131 On 18 October 2010, the Hutu branch of PARECO integrated into the FARDC put on a common front with the CNDP by pub-licly associating with its position at the end of a bilateral meeting.132

PARECO was actually the big loser in the agreement. It did not obtain any position in the administration or in the provincial political structures. The self-proclaimed general Mugabo Baguma, who encouraged the integration of the 129 “Second session of the follow-up committee of the 23 March agreement”, message sent by Alan Doss to Alain Le Roy, 13 August 2009. 130 “Confidential: Provincial Report of the MONUC NK Task Force on Cross Border Movement of Populations from Rwanda to the DRC”, MONUC, Goma, 27 November 2009, p. 3. 131 “Mémorandum à l’intention du président Kabila, objet: re-vendication de certains officiers FARDC”, Goma, 23 Septem-ber 2010. 132 “Communiqué de presse du CNDP et de la PARECO”, Go-ma, 18 October 2010.

Hutus into the FARDC in January 2008, only ever re-ceived military pay according to his rank in the national army. The rapprochement between PARECO and the CNDP was a consequence of a lack of enthusiasm shown by the Congolese government to honour its commitments.

2. Regional relocation of protests

Far from being a new phenomenon, relocation of armed political resistance remains a characteristic of the Kivu region. Unable to develop in their country, the resistance relocates into the Kivu, where they take advantage of the lack of state control to form an armed rebellion. Even if interventions by national troops are rare, the threat for the regimes they challenge persists. Regional cooperation, manipulation of a Congolese group or intimidation are all methods still used in the Kivus.

The arrest and detention of Laurent Nkunda in Rwanda created a deep rift within the CNDP. Bosco, who rejoined Nkunda’s military chief of staff in 2006, did not have his-torical legitimacy in the eyes of the Congolese founders of the movement. The two subsequent presidents – Désiré Kamanzi and Philippe Gafishi – had built their profes-sional careers in Rwanda and were practically unknown in Kivu.133 Nkunda’s former collaborators denounced Kigali’s takeover of their movement. They criticised president Kagame, accusing him of prioritising his own interna-tional image after the 2008 crisis for the grounds pursued by CNDP.134 Bertrand Bisimwa, the former spokesperson of the CNDP, explained to the media that “Rwandans have deceived [them]” since 25 January 2009.135 From the end of 2009 until summer 2010, the division progres-sively widened between the figures deemed close to Kigali and those who refused to follow Rwandan instructions.

The faction which remained faithful to Nkunda was per-ceived as a threat to the Rwandan authorities. As the presi-dential elections of August 2010 approached, the politico-security situation in Rwanda deteriorated. One of Ka-game’s rivals, General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, fled Rwanda on 27 February 2010 to take refuge in South Af-rica. A former chief of defence staff and director of intel-ligence, General Kayumba Nyamwasa had collaborated

133 Crisis Group interview, Goma, 24 February 2009. See also Jason Stearns, “A CNDP Christmas” and “CNDP and the logic of disorder”, Congo Siasa, 15 November and 17 December 2009. Gafishi, a close of Bosco, was named to the head of the CNDP in December 2009 after the surprise suspension of Kamanzi on 8 October in a context of heightened tensions between pro-Bosco and pro-Nkunda supporters. 134 Crisis Group interviews, CNDP leaders, October 2010 and May 2010. 135 “RDC: militaires rwandais et congolais progressent pour chasser les rebelles”, Agence France-Presse, 26 January 2009.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 16 with the Congolese Tutsis close to Nkunda and continued to benefit from the network of support within the Rwan-dan army. MONUC was informed that General Kayumba had contacted leading CNDP figures, the FDLR, and a new militia led by the Tutsi Gad Ngabo – the Front patriotique pour la liberation du Congo (FPLC, see below).136 On 2 June 2010, in coordination with the FDLR, the FPLC at-tacked an important arms depot in Burungu in a part of Masisi controlled by the CNDP. Between March and June 2010, an anti-Kagame armed front with potential links to the Rwandan security forces was established.

Rwandan pressure on the CNDP increased. In May 2010, Patrice Habarurema, then Gafishi’s Chief of Staff, an-nounced the project for a “reformed CNDP” temporarily led by a Secretary General. Habarurema wanted the post of president to be left vacant awaiting the return of Nkunda. This initiative anticipated the departure of the CNDP from the integration process. Habarurema was arrested on 7 May in the Rwandan town of Gisenyi and transferred to Kigali.137 On 20 June, Denis Ntare Semadwinga, presi-dent of the Banyarwanda community in North Kivu and Nkunda’s former colleague, was assassinated in Gisenyi. On 30 August 2010, Emerita Munyashwe, another ally of Nkunda, was killed by unknown assailants on a street in Goma.138 The deterioration of the link between the Rwan-dan regime and the CNDP had unexpected consequences. Since the end of November, numerous reports indicated to MONUSCO that CNDP officers were deserting the FARDC ranks and getting close to the FDLR.139

Along the border with Uganda, two armed groups posed other risks of regional destabilisation. Since summer 2009, Gad Ngabo’s FPLC had gradually extended their influence in a part of Rushuru territory bordering Uganda and had recruited demobilised Mayi Mayi and CNDP deserters. Ngabo appeared free to travel to Kampala regularly where he raised funds through his support network. Twice, the peacekeepers recorded incursions into North Kivu of Rwandan army reconnaissance units attempting to evalu-ate the strength of the FPLC.140

In the “Grand Nord” of North Kivu, the 500 to 600 fight-ers of the Ugandan group ADF did not pose a major secu-rity risk to the Congolese Nande population. In November 2009, Kampala informed Kinshasa that the rebel group had intensified its training and recruitment. The Ugandan 136 Crisis Group interviews, MONUC officials, Kinshasa, June and July 2010. 137 Crisis Group interview, CNDP leader, May 2010. 138 Jason Stearns, “Assassination of Nkunda ally in Goma”, Congo Siasa, 30 August 2010. 139 Crisis Group interview, MONUSCO official, 12 November 2010. 140 Crisis Group interview, MONUC officials, Kinshasa and Goma, May, June and July 2010.

Chief of the Defence Staff explained that he suspected links between the ADF and the Somali rebel group Al-Shabaab. In December 2009, a battalion of Ugandan sol-diers spent several days in Beni, North Kivu. This was officially recognised as an accident. In February 2010, Kampala, Kinshasa and MONUC agreed to exchange in-telligence on the ADF. The FARDC started to prepare for a military operation.141

Despite increased tension between Uganda and Rwanda during the first half of 2010 – the Rwandan army was re-inforced along the shared border142 – in June 2010, Presi-dents Kabila, Kagame and Museveni decided on a coor-dinated approach to address the ADF and the FPLC. On 25 June, without consulting MONUC and with no warn-ing given to the local population, the FARDC suddenly launched operation “Rwenzori” against the ADF. On 28 June, Gad Ngabo was summoned by the Ugandan intelli-gence services and arrested in Kampala.143 On 14 July, the Rwandan police participated in the forced repatriation of 1,700 Rwandans from refugee camps in Uganda, lead-ing to the death of two people while trying to escape.144 The friendly relationships between the three heads of state were on show in Kinshasa during the Congo’s cele-brations to commemorate fifty years of independence.145

In August 2010, Agathon Rwasa, the president of the Forces nationales de libération (FNL) – a former Burun-dian Hutu armed group converted to a political opposition party – took refuge in the DRC.146 After the failure of his movement in the summer 2010 elections, he went under-ground and crossed the border of South Kivu with the complicity of the Congolese military.147 MONUSCO re-ceived accounts at the end of 2010 indicating that he was recruiting new fighters with the support of Yakutumba Mayi Mayi.148 The risk of reactivating a Burundian rebel-lion due to the historical support in South Kivu, in addition

141 Crisis Group interviews, Kampala, July 2010. 142 “UDPF call for calm as Rwanda deploys on border”, The Monitor, 28 June 2010. 143 Crisis Group interviews with diplomats, Kinshasa and Kam-pala, June and July 2010. 144 “UNHCR condemns forced return of 1,700 Rwandans from Uganda”, UNHCR, 16 July 2010. See also “Uganda/Rwanda: Halt Forced Returns of Refugees”, Human Rights Watch, 17 July 2010. 145 The Ugandan intelligence service accused the ADF of hav-ing taken part in the 11 July 2010 attacks in Kampala attributed to the Somali organisation Al-Shabaab. 146 See Crisis Group Africa report N°155, Burundi: Ensuring Credible Elections, 12 February 2010; and Crisis Group Africa briefing N°63, Burundi: To Integrate the FNL Successfully, 30 July 2009. 147 Crisis Group interview, Bujumbura, August 2010. 148 Crisis Group interview, MONUSCO official, Kampala, 12 November 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 17 to ADF, FDLR and other anti-Kagame armed movements further illustrated the potential for regional destabilisation in eastern Congo.

3. Worsening of intercommunity antagonisms

The role of the CNDP is still to protect the North Kivu Tutsis against hostile communities. Despite their division into pro-Bosco and pro-Nkunda factions, all CNDP mem-bers agreed on the need to strengthen their collective in-fluence and in the long term to eventually establish safe territory for Congolese Tutsis. The CNDP had a window of opportunity to achieve this thanks to its integration in the Congolese army in Kivu.149 Since reintegration, the CNDP has pursued its stated aims of the repatriation of Tutsi Congolese, sheltering in Rwanda and their resettle-ment in protected areas before the planned February 2012 provincial elections.150

UNHCR in Rwanda manages three camps sheltering 54,000 Congolese – the majority Tutsi – and provides assistance to 4,000 more Congolese in the towns.151 In Uganda, UNHCR registered 75,000 other Congolese refugees com-ing from Kivu and the Eastern Province – the largest pro-portion of them being Hutu.152 At the end of 2009, Gaf-ishi, the new CNDP president, put forward a figure of 150,000 more Tutsi refugees, who were living in Rwanda without recourse to any support from UNHCR, though this estimation was immediately denounced by the tradi-tional leaders in North Kivu.153

A spontaneous return movement from Rwanda was ob-served in 2009.154 On 5 August 2009, the National Com- 149 The 8th military district officially coordinates FARDC ac-tion from its Goma headquarters. In reality, many operations are directed from the CNDP command centre in Kitchanga, in Masisi territory. The military leaders sent by Kinshasa for the anti-FDLR campaigns and the head of the 8th military district, General Mayala, do not have any real influence on the CNDP commanders. Crisis Group interviews, Goma and Bukavu, April and May 2010. 150 Crisis Group interviews, CNDP leaders, Goma, March 2009 and April 2010. 151 Crisis Group interview, UNHCR official, Goma, 18 April 2010. 152 Crisis Group interview, UNHCR official, Kampala, 26 July 2010. 153 They challenged the status of refugee for Congolese Tutsis who returned to Rwanda after Kagame seized power. They also denied Congolese citizenship to those who had dual Rwandan nationality. The leaders of Walikale, Lubero and Beni denied that a Tutsi community had ever existed in their territories. See the daily report from MONUC in North Kivu, Goma, 8 Sep-tember 2009. 154 This return movement was not the first. When Serufuli was governor of North Kivu, he organised the return of 45,000 refugees who joined transit camps around Kirolirwe in Masisi.

mission for Refugees (CNR) became aware of refugees crossing the border at Kibumba to North Kivu. According to its investigation finalised in September 2009, this movement began in May 2009 and involved 12,000 indi-viduals not-registered by UNHCR.155 They entered Congo under the supervision of CNDP, without crossing customs posts, before taking chartered public transport to Masisi, Ngungu and Kitchanga areas, causing anger amongst the traditional Hunde, Nande, and Nyanga leaders.156 MONUC considered it very likely that Rwandan illegal immigrants would have helped to orchestrate the movement157 includ-ing Rwandan Hutus having gone into exile following the implementation of agrarian reforms and the imposition of English language in Rwandan schools in Rwanda.158

In order to set up an official and organised return, the DRC, Rwanda and UNHCR signed a Tripartite Agreement on 17 February 2010 to launch repatriation. The United Nations agency would only take responsibility for those refugees who were registered and who voluntarily wanted to return to their place of origin. It warned that the cases of internally displaced people living in the refugee return areas should be resolved urgently to avoid accusations of preferential treatment. Provisions in the 23 March 2009 Peace Agreement foresaw the need to set up 30 Local Per-manent Conciliation Committees (CLPC) to accompany the reinsertion process.

In August 2010, UNHCR officials warned that political manipulation would provoke ethnic violence in the Kivus159 as, in April 2010, the Congolese authorities ignored a proposition from UNHCR to conduct an accurate census on spontaneous returns, which seemed to be continuing.160 Without fixing an exact date for the start of the repatria-tions, the Tripartite Commission (DRC-Rwanda-UNHCR) adopted the practical modalities, which were immediately contested by traditional chiefs in the areas of return.161 A

155 “Briefing Note: Population Movements from Rwanda UNHCR Sub Office Goma”, UNHCR, Goma, 10 November 2009. See also the UNHCR report from the follow-up meeting to the Humani-tarian Security Committee Meeting, Goma, 21 October 2009. 156 “Refugees in Eastern DRC: a discussion document”, Interna-tional Alert, January 2010, p.3. 157 “Confidential: Provincial Report of the MONUC NK Task Force on Cross Border Movement of Populations from Rwanda to the DRC”, 27 November 2009, op. cit., p. 2. 158 Crisis Group interview, 28 October 2010. 159 The president of civil society in North Kivu was quoted as saying “I can tell you for sure that if these returns happen now there will be catastrophe. People say they will protect their land until the last drop of blood is spilled.” “Fertile land the prize that could reignite ethnic conflict in DR Congo”, The Guard-ian, 20 August 2010. 160 Crisis Group interview, UNHCR official, Goma, 18 April 2010. 161 During the public meetings, the traditional leaders announced their refusal to accept the return of the refugees. Some eventu-

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 18 Tripartite Agreement (DRC-Uganda-UNHCR) was also signed on 29 October 2010. In a poll carried out at the beginning of 2010, 32,000 Congolese refugees had ex-pressed their wish to be repatriated by the Ugandan gov-ernment and UNHCR.162

The issue of refugee return where a parallel CNDP ad-ministration survives highlights the ongoing problem of competition for land. The influx of returning refugees has created suspicion about attempts to modify political bal-ances in the Kivu areas rich in grazing land, natural re-sources and farmable land. Traditional leaders feel that their authority is undermined by the CNDP administra-tion. Customary law gives traditional leaders the power to allocate land and they want to be involved in the identifi-cation of refugees who do not have documents proving their origin.

On the other hand, the CNDP proposed a new territorial and electoral division to the Congolese government, which reduces the influence of traditional authorities to the bene-fit of future locally-elected representatives. While numer-ous farmers follow customary laws and are unaware of referral to the land registry, the CNDP wanted the Congo-lese state to enforce the property rights in accordance with the national land law of 1973.163 The contradictions between customary law and the written law have consid-erable consequences in terms of legitimacy for local pow-ers. National authorities have avoided debate for fear of accusations of meddling in laws for political benefit.

After the closure of the camps for displaced people in Goma in September 2009 and the simultaneous arrival of cows crossing the border town of Bunagana, land conflicts have multiplied in the area controlled by the CNDP.164 Operating with limited means, between September 2009 and July 2010 UN HABITAT registered approximately 450 conflicts in one section of the Masisi and Rutshuru

ally refused to recognise to have been invited and to have par-ticipated in the tripartite meeting in Kigali. See “La Tripartite RDC-Rwanda-HCR adopte les modalités du retour des réfu-giés”, Radio Okapi, 31 July 2010. In September, the return of 500 Congolese refugees from Rwanda to the areas of Kisimba and Ikobo in the Walikale territory provoked displeasure in the local population, “Controverse autour de l’installation dans la cité de Walikale de 500 réfugiés congolais en provenance du Rwanda”, www.digitalcongo.net/article/70385 (27 September 2010). www.digitalcongo.net/article/70385 (27 September 2010). 162 “Joint Communiqué of the First Meeting of the Uganda-DRC-UNHCR Tripartite Commission on Voluntary Repatriation of Refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Liv-ing in the Republic of Uganda”, Kampala, 29 October 2010. 163 Crisis Group interview, CNDP leader, Goma, April 2010. 164 Crisis Group interviews, Goma, April 2010.

territories.165 In some cases several hundred families face a few landowners supported by the FARDC officers.166 MONUC also was informed that, in several localities of the Masisi territory, ex-CNDP military have despoiled some villages of their fields in order to make them pas-ture land or to exploit minerals there.167

In the context of the CNDP civilian-military chain of command and of the forthcoming repatriation of refugees to Kivu,168 the politicisation and militarisation of the larg-est land conflicts exceeds the work of the land mediation carried out on the ground by the CLPC, UN HABITAT and other NGOs. In fact, this risks reducing it to nothing.

C. LABORIOUS BEGINNINGS TO THE

ECONOMIC PEACE AGENDA

The political and security dimensions of the resolution of the conflict in the Kivus are completed by an institutional (re-establishment of state authority) and economic (re-gional development) approach, which seeks to address the roots of conflict. This approach is largely supported by

165 UN HABITAT has six land mediators operating from Kitchanga to meet a need estimated at more than fifty mediators. Crisis Group interviews with UN HABITAT officials, Goma and En-tebbe, 17 May and 22 July 2010. Three social groups are em-broiled in these conflicts: a minority class of large land owners, powerful breeders, and farmers forming the majority of the population. “RD Congo/ Nord Kivu: Caritas combat les conflits foncier par la vulgarisation de la loi”, Caritas, 30 April 2010. 166 The agricultural cooperative COOPRAKA regrouping 510 families is in conflict with a group of eleven landowners over 500 hectares of land near Tongo. Amongst the landowners is the spokesperson of the “Amani Leo” operation in North Kivu, Major Kazarama. The latter had five members of the coopera-tive arrested under the pretext of “defamation”. Another exam-ple can be given of the villagers from Ndeko in Masisi who sig-nalled to MONUC that Colonel Ngaruye Baudoin, deputy leader of Zone 2 of the same operation, was interfering in a land dis-pute on behalf of a landowner. See “Daily Situation Report”, MONUC Brigade from North Kivu, Goma, 2 May 2010. 167 Crisis Group interview, MONUC official, Goma, April 2010. This phenomenon is not limited to North Kivu as army inter-ventions in land disputes have been witnessed also in the Kalehe territory, in the extreme north of South Kivu province. On 9 June 2010, in the Minova area, some FARDC soldiers from Goma have intimidated civilians involved in an ongoing land conflict on the Kilenge plantation. 168 The Nande community is very hostile to the return of a few hundred Tutsi families in the South of the Lubero territory in the “Grand Nord” of North Kivu. On 26 April 2010, a memo-randum from the national deputies of South Kivu addressed to the Congolese Prime Minister denounced a return movement of “Rwandan Tutsis” notably to Kalonge and Numbi. It con-demned control by CNDP military of strategic positions in the province and the attempt to nominate an administrator from Rwanda in the Idjwi island on Lake Kivu.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 19 international donors and the United Nations and, for the time being, is facing persistent insecurity, a deficient na-tional and provincial government, capacity gaps and lack of political will between the governments in the region.

1. The limited impact of the stabilisation programmes

For Kinshasa, the 23 March 2009 Peace Agreement with the Congolese armed group concluded the peace negotia-tions. To illustrate this success, in November 2009 Kabila asked MONUC to began preparations for a withdrawal of its peacekeepers. The UN Mission became MONUSCO in July 2010 to mark the passage from a peacekeeping mission to a stabilisation phase in eastern Congo.

On 29 June 2009, president Kabila established the Con-golese Programme for Stabilization and Reconstruction in Conflict-Affected Areas (STAREC).169 The contribution of foreign actors is set out in the International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy for Congo (ISSSS). Initially, the contents of STAREC and ISSSS were har-monised. The stabilisation activities consisted of rehabili-tating, as a matter of priority, strategic roads in order to open up high-risk areas and to construct buildings to de-ploy police and administrative services on land taken back by armed groups. In summer 2010, the stabilisation strategy encountered several major obstacles.

Firstly, raising the funds quickly became problematic. The requested amount and the final budget granted were incomparable: Kinshasa estimated the cost of stabilisation at US$1.2 billion over a period of six months.170 The final budget established by the international donors was a more realistic figure of US$850 million over three years for the priority needs. In May 2010, only US$266 million had been mobilised for security and for carrying out the po-litical commitments made in the 23 March 2009 Peace Agreement. The STAREC component dealing with re-vival of economic activities had been temporarily frozen. In July 2010, the component addressing sexual violence had only been allocated US$5 million for projects in Ituri and South Kivu. As the integration of ex-combatants came under STAREC, the absence of financial engage-ment from Kinshasa sent a strong negative signal to the remaining armed rebel groups.171

169 The Congolese government, MONUC, fifteen implementing partners and ten international donors agreed to a joint approach on stabilisation. 170 “Programme de stabilisation et de reconstruction des zones sortant des conflits armés”, Gouvernement de la RDC, June 2009. 171 Crisis Group, member of the stabilisation team in MONUC, Goma, 17 April 2010.

The inability of the Congolese government to assume a dynamic role in stabilisation was obvious. In July 2010, the implementation of ISSSS rested on 38 administrative centres, prisons, courts and police stations out of a planned 50. They were nevertheless ready to house 300 civil ser-vants, 300 territorial police and 800 members of the Rapid Intervention Police (PIR). The rehabilitation of three roads in Kivu, totalling almost 300km, was also finished.172 However, the Congolese government did not manage to set up or deploy the administrative personnel needed to re-establish state authority. Only 100 PIR police were de-ployed to South Kivu, the other 700 were retained in Kin-shasa. No logistics support or medical care was made available to the 300 territorial police from North Kivu. Many of the buildings which had been constructed re-mained empty and unused and had to be guarded to en-sure that the equipment was not looted.

Finally and above all, the current political-military situa-tion in Kivu does not correspond to a stabilisation phase. This difference between the stabilisation programme and the realities on the ground was clearly exposed by inter-national NGOs to European Ambassadors during their stay in Bukavu in September 2010.173 Work on several sections of the strategic road has been interrupted by op-posing armed groups. In South Kivu, the road between Hombo and Bunyakiri remains under the control of the FDLR. The reconciliation commission under STAREC supports UN HABITAT in resolving land disputes and preparing for the repatriation of refugees from Rwanda. Its local employees are disappointed that Kinshasa still views South Kivu’s problems as local and does not en-gage with the CNDP for their resolution.174 The delays in nominating 60 civil administrators set out in STAREC in the CNDP area further illustrate the challenge of restoring state authority in the region.

The construction of barracks was also a priority of the in-ternational stabilisation plan. At the beginning of 2010, the FARDC reform project presented by the Congolese government anticipated the maintenance of twenty battal-ions in Kivu. Some financial resources were mobilised in the ISSSS framework for half of these battalions, and in-stallations were made ready to host three in South Kivu. However, the UK Department for International Develop-ment and International Organisations for Migration (IOM) initiative for seven additional battalions was blocked by

172 The ISSSS planned to reopen three road axis in South Kivu, of which the Bukavu-Hombo and Baraka-Fizi roads were prac-tically finished by August 2010, and two axis in North Kivu, of which Rutshuru-Ishasa has also been finished. 173 Briefing to European Union Ambassadors during their visit to South Kivu, 22 September 2010. 174 Crisis Group interview, STAREC official, Goma, 18 April 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 20 the Congolese military authorities who prioritised military operations already underway. The number of FARDC soldiers currently engaged in military operations in Kivu is six times greater than the capacity of the barracks planned in the stabilisation strategy.

2. Provincial power struggle

The provincial political institutions from North and South Kivu were unable to efficiently assist the stabilisation strat-egy because of governance problems in Goma and Bukavu.

In North Kivu, a corruption scandal destabilised the gov-ernor Julien Paluku. A report submitted in September 2009 by an evaluation commission on implementation of the North Kivu budget revealed serious signs of corruption. Out of 42 provincial deputies, 18 signed a no-confidence request against the governor. The deputies in favour of the governor no longer attended the parliamentary sittings meaning that there would not be an adequate quorum to make a vote of no confidence. This behaviour blocked all the activities of the provincial parliament. The North Kivu political corruption file was handed over to the courts and two concurrent legal proceedings have begun.175 As a re-sult, the executive and legislative institutions of North Kivu have been brought to a standstill.

In December 2009, the Goma opposing factions solicited the assistance of the president, who had given an extra thrust to the application of the national strategy of “zero tolerance” against corruption since July 2009.176 However, Kabila did not step in and waited for the results of the le-gal process.177 Paluku was an important figure in dialogue between the presidency and CNDP politicians through STAREC. His enforced departure would have opened up a power struggle in North Kivu at the moment where intercommunity tensions were at their peak. In the second half of 2010, a temporary compromise enabled the pro-vincial parliament to function again thanks to mediation by a Council of Elders. However, political manoeuvring continued until summer 2010 and handicapped the func-tioning of the provincial institutions.

In South Kivu, the governors imposed by Kinshasa suc-ceeded one another unable to last in the face of a rebellious provincial assembly. Governor Louis Léonce Muderwa 175 See the Goma Court of Appeal ruling of 6 February 2010. 176 On 31 July 2009, 80 legal professionals were dismissed and 1,212 retired from office. On 2 January 2010, seventeen Execu-tive Orders for contract termination and nomination were signed to replace almost 1,500 service sector employees under the authority of the Ministry of Finance. See “Human Rights Situation Report for July 2010”, United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJDRO), p. 2. See also Orders N°10/001-N°10/017 from 2 January 2010. 177 Crisis Group interview, Goma, 15 May 2010.

was accused by a parliamentary commission of financial mismanagement and bad management. Although a mem-ber of the Shi ethnic community, which is very influential in South Kivu, his popularity in Bukavu has declined sig-nificantly since taking up his position in December 2008. Civil society reproached him for not listening, and the Federation of Congolese Businesses noted the lack of economic improvement. While Muderwa stayed in Kin-shasa to gain the support of Kabila between February and April 2010, the South Kivu parliament began dismissal proceedings. It was approved by 22 provincial deputies. Muderwa resigned on 19 April.

His replacement was decided in a politically sensitive con-text. Kabila went to Bukavu one week before the election of the third governor of South Kivu since 2006, where he met in private with the members of parliament. On 12 June, his former diplomatic advisor from Kinshasa and member of the Shi community from Walungu, Marcellin Chishambo, won 24 of the 36 votes cast. Only the vice governor retained his seat but no other member of the provincial government was returned. Without a local po-litical intermediary, Chishambo has to gain the confi-dence of the population through his achievements before the next governor elections at the start of 2012 and loosen the political hold of Vital Kamerhe, a disgraced former president of the national assembly and potential candidate in the next presidential election.

The failure of this second governor imposed by the presi-dent reflected both the refusal to accept Kinshasa’s control of South Kivu’s affairs and the need to respect the subtle balancing act between communities, even within commu-nities, of this province.

3. From regional confrontation to regional cooperation

To address the economic roots of the violence in the Great Lakes region a revival of the regional cooperation begun in the 1970s is required. Regional economic cooperation is both a tool and a signal. It is a tool which creates a coa-lition of economic interests, which benefits countries and their citizens by moving from regional competition to re-gional cooperation; it is also a signal of a certain level of confidence among the Great Lakes countries. However, restarting cooperation has been slowed down by capacity gaps and a lack of willingness. In the long term, like eve-rywhere in Africa, the harmonisation of cooperation struc-tures is a way to avoid duplication of efforts.

There are two main structures of regional cooperation in the Great Lakes with different forms although there are cross-cutting areas: the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) created in 1976 and the Inter-national Conference on the Great Lakes Region (CIRGL), a more recent creation and initially a political forum which

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 21 champions regional development.178 The scope of activi-ties of the two organisations should be harmonised in the long term, but the sub-regional co-operational framework functions nevertheless.

The current re-launch of CEPGL, which stalled due to successive conflicts, came back to life when the Kinshasa named its representative to the organisation in May 2009. With financial support from the European Union, the CEPGL committed to designing regional economic inte-gration projects, but it is really on the energy projects that it has framed its re-launch. Indeed, the energy deficit has formed a bottleneck for the economy in the region. CEGPL is credited for establishing hydroelectric dams on the Ruzizi River, which separates South Kivu from Rwanda, and supplying both Bukavu and Goma with five mega-watts of power.179 CEPGL planned to increase the elec-tricity service of its member countries by creating a Ruzizi III180 and by developing the exploitation of methane gas under Lake Kivu.

The management of the energy projects revealed willing-ness and capacity gaps for regional cooperation. In July 2009, Rwanda and DRC signed an agreement to jointly construct a gas turbine of 200 megawatts on Lake Kivu (the needs in North and South Kivu are estimated at 50 megawatts). Since then, no concrete initiative has been taken by the Congolese side because the Minister of Hydrocarbons and the Minister of the Environment are fighting a political battle for control of the gas extraction projects.181 However, Rwanda has not waited for Congo to sort out its difficulties. Since March 2009, Kigali has begun developing an off-shore platform with a partner anticipating an investment of 325 million dollars. The objective is to produce 25 megawatts by the end of 2010 and 100 megawatts by 2012.182 In the long term, DRC will have to buy electricity produced on Lake Kivu by Rwandan plants. The Congolese government is clearly at a disadvantage in the face of Rwandan specialists used to transforming international aid into concrete achievements.

It appears that DRC has reluctantly reengaged in regional cooperation, going as far as to sabotage the French led ini-tiative to organise a Great Lakes meeting during the France-Africa summit in Nice. French diplomacy has committed 178 For the history of CEPGL and CIRGL, see Annex C Regional Cooperation. 179 “Les experts de la CEPGL analysent l’impact environnemen-tal de Ruzizi III”, Radio Okapi, 18 February 2010. 180 “Ruzizi 3 at Last Under Discussion”, Africa Energy Intelli-gence, 14 July 2010. 181 “Lac Kivu: l’exploitation du gaz methane traîne les pieds”, Radio Okapi, 13 July 2010. 182 “ContourGlobal signs agreement with Republic of Rwanda to develop Lake Kivu Methane Gas Project”, press release, ContourGlobal, 2 March 2009.

itself to promoting cooperation and integration. Since July 2009, France had made preparations for a donor con-ference which would mobilise international funding for large infrastructure projects in the Great Lakes region. The Ruzizi III project would be the main beneficiary, but the three countries of the CEPGL initially had to bring with them US$43 million and find private investors to finance the majority of the investment.

The selection of regional projects of common interest was done during preparatory meetings throughout 2010 and Presidents Kabila, Kagame and Sarkozy had to announce this conference in Nice, on 1 June 2010. After having let uncertainty persist and after asking for a change in the shape of the meeting at the last minute, Kabila finally cancelled his attendance and the Congolese Minister of Foreign Affairs refused even the idea of a meeting on re-gional cooperation with his counterparts who were also present in Nice.183

While the 24/7 opening of the border between Goma and Gisenyi since April 2010 favoured small cross-border business,184 CIRGL’s contribution to the improvement in exchanges in the region is still to be seen. One of CIRGL’s priorities was to develop a regional strategy to fight against illegal exploitation of natural resources, which represents a significant part of the cross-border or foreign exchanges. Another initiative consisted of facilitating the compilation of export data registered at border posts. By improving the transparency of these exchanges, CIRGL hoped to re-spond to suspicions of pillaging of Congo’s wealth by its neighbours and thereby reinforcing mutual trust.

CEPGL and CIRGL collaborate on projects for the har-monisation of administrative procedures and the improve-ment of the big markets in border towns. In the state, the absence of harmonisation of customs regulations and ad-ministrative annoyances/harassment limit the expansion of the formal economy. The acceleration of commercial flux largely benefits the operators in the big towns in Kivu, but the rural economy has not improved.

Despite the existence of two regional organisations, re-gional cooperation still remains in a project state. The de-velopment of regional commercial exchanges is the result of dynamic entrepreneurs in the region and not because of official declarations. In the absence of concrete plans and taking into account the various contentious issues between

183 Crisis Group interview, diplomats, Paris, 13 September 2010. 184 According to International Alert, 22,000 traders and their dependants from the two countries directly profited from this measure. “The Crossing. Small-Scale Trade and Improving Cross-Border Relations between Goma (DR Congo) and Gis-enyi (Rwanda)”, Celestin Kimanuka and Maria Lange, Interna-tional Alert, June 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 22 member states,185 it would seem that regional development policy remains a slogan and feeds the prevailing scepti-cism regarding the economic potential of the Great Lakes region.186

185 Several contentious subjects put the states of CEPGL in op-position, notably the recapitalisation of the Development Bank of the Great Lake Countries (BDEGL) of which the debt has still not been paid off. “Banque des grands Lacs: les bailleurs posent des conditions à sa relance”, RTBF, 29 November 2009. 186 Some countries believe, in effect, it is more realistic and more profitable to focus on the regional development in East Africa than in the Great Lakes. Crisis Group interview, Rwan-dan Minister, September 2010.

III. CHANGING THE APPROACH TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT

The success of the 2006 presidential elections won by Jo-seph Kabila fuelled hopes for peace within the Congolese population worn out by ten years of violence, civil wars and foreign occupation. One year before the end of Presi-dent Kabila’s first mandate, the women and men of Kivu are still victims of war crimes and massive violations of their basic rights by the military. The DRC government has the main responsibility to offer this population a credi-ble perspective of an end to the conflict in the east.

The anti-FDLR campaigns of the FARDC have not led to reestablishment of security and state authority. MONUSCO’s conditionality policy was skirted by the national military authorities who led unilateral operations. In these circum-stances, it was necessary to suspend military offensive operations in the provinces of North and South Kivu. They could only restart if they were led in an efficient way mainly by soldiers from outside of Kivu.

For several years, international partners of DRC have par-ticipated in Congolese troop training. The United States has trained battalions in Kisangani, China in Kamina, Belgium in Kananga, South Africa in Mura and Angola in Kitona. None of these have been deployed to Kivu since the rapprochement between Presidents Kabila and Ka-game. The Congolese government has until now chosen to keep its best troops in reserve to deal with other even-tualities.187 Kinshasa should provide the military compo-nent of a global strategy for disarming the FDLR to these forces. Previously, they were deployed to the Masisi and Rutshuru territories in North Kivu, to guarantee the safety of the population until the final application of the 23 March 2009 peace agreement. The countries which trained the Congolese military units could supervise, advise and sup-port them in their operational activities in Kivu.

The United Nations Security Council Members should give MONUSCO peacekeepers the resources to allow them to concentrate their activities on the protection of civilians. This mainly entails retaining movement capabilities, sup-port to mobile bases and the deployment of joint protec-tion teams. In summer 2010, India repatriated helicopters which were then not replaced. The fleet of UN helicopters dwindled from 36 units at the beginning of 2010 to 24 today and could even be reduced further to fourteen at the be-ginning of 2011. If air assets are not provided quickly enough, a number of important peacekeeping bases in Kivu populations will be closed, due to a lack of support and resupply capabilities.

187 Crisis Group interview, FARDC officer seconded to the Min-istry of Defence, Kinshasa, July 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 23 MONUSCO should continue to collaborate with FARDC to control the zones where FDLR have been pushed from and to restrict the access to the mining areas. However, it needs to regain credibility it lost with the Congolese popu-lation. The trust given by the Kivu villagers to those man-dated to protect them is a decisive element of the debate opened at the end of 2009 on the date of withdrawal of the UN Mission. Considering the conditions which have recently favoured rapes in the summer of 2010 in the Luvungi area, the MONUSCO leadership must show the determination of its contingents to make full use of their scope of actions permitted by their rules of engagement.188 To make the multiple denouncements of impunity in the Congo consistent with the reality of the engagement of the peacekeepers in DRC, the United Nations should condi-tion MONUSCO’s support to the Congolese authorities on the arrest of Bosco. An opportunity to re-establish the weakened links between the peacekeepers and the Congo-lese presents itself with the arrival on 1 July 2010 of a new head of the peacekeeping mission, Roger Meece.

The rapid integration of the rebel fighters into FARDC organised by the Congolese government has not stopped the formation or the reconstitution of numerous militia. The alliance between the Mayi Mayi Kifuafua and the FDLR is the result of the absence of a credible demobili-sation, disarmament and reintegration into civilian life programme (DDR). During the first ten months of 2010, the United Nations mission picked up approximately 410 child-soldiers from the ranks of the FDLR for whom no specific reintegration programme is financed by the Con-golese authorities.

Congo’s international partners should take responsibility of a revised integration process linked to a new DDR pro-gramme. Both should be financed by the peacebuilding fund and donors. All the FARDC soldiers from Kivu, like the fighters from groups associated with the FDLR, would have access to the programme. The international donors should make child soldiers the centre of their priorities. The number of military in North and South Kivu prov-inces would be reduced to reach the goal of six brigades

188 The conclusion of a UN evaluation mission headed by Gen-eral Maurice Baril in April 2008 led to the understanding that some MONUC contingents lacked a willingness to apply the whole range of measures of the rules of engagement assigned to the mission. The same assessment was made in different terms in the United Nations analysis of the Kiwanja massacre of No-vember 2008 close to the MONUC base. See 26th Report of the Secretary-General on MONUC, S/2008/433, 3 July 2008, point 36, and “Consolidated report on investigations conducted by the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO) into grave human rights abuses committed in Kiwanja, North Kivu, in November 2008”, op. cit.

of 3,500 soldiers fixed in the FARDC reform plan pre-sented by the Defence Minister in January 2010.189

Kinshasa and the CNDP have no credible reason not to fully implement the 23 March 2009 Peace Agreement. The Congolese government, which recently abandoned dialogue with the signatories, should renew by ministerial order the mandate of the National Follow-up Committee (CND) which expired in May 2010. It should also imple-ment the recommendations which have not been followed up from the Military Commission on the recognition of grades from January 2010. Considering the failure of each side to abide by its commitments, representatives of the main partner countries of Congo should be associated with the work of the CND in order to make a regular assess-ment of the implementation of the agreement. CNDP fig-ures should be appointed to political and administrative positions in North Kivu to compensate for the complete dismantling of parallel CNDP administrative and taxation structures. This dismantling should be confirmed by MONUSCO. The CNDP leaders should also be encour-aged to avoid involvement in Rwanda’s internal politics by severing contact with Rwandan dissidents such as General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa.

The implementation of the 23 March 2009 Peace Agree-ment will not be complete until the Congolese authorities have arrested Bosco. The crimes committed by Bosco are not covered by the amnesty law voted by the Congolese parliament and no political normalisation of the CNDP will be possible as long as he remains a member of the organisation’s leadership. Obtaining national and interna-tional political legitimacy means that the CNDP accepts the end of impunity for Bosco and his transfer to the ICC.

The governments of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda and UNHCR have a shared responsibility to supervise and guarantee a safe environment for the return of Congolese refugees to the Kivu. Some nationality verification proce-dures are integrated into the registration and issuance of voting cards process, which should be carried out before the general elections in 2011-12. In partnership with UNHCR, the authorities in Kinshasa should before then carry out an accurate census of non-documented refugees who have left Rwanda for Kivu since summer 2009. The joint verification mechanism (JVM) of the border be-tween Rwanda and DRC will be reactivated and spread to Uganda to dissuade clandestine immigration in Kivu. The border posts should be strictly demilitarised and run by the duly authorised administrative services.

The repatriation of Congolese refugees from Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi should be carried out under the strict

189 “Plan de la réforme de l’armée”, Ministry of Defence and Veterans, March 2009 edition, p. 16.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 24 conditions established by UNHCR. These include the as-surance of voluntary return and security in the return ar-eas. The Kivu territories in which MONUSCO records the existence of a parallel administration in contradiction to the 23 March 2009 peace agreement will not be open to a return. A range of objective and verifiable indicators will be established by the Permanent Local Conciliation Committees (CLPC) to determine if the reception condi-tions allow for the return of refugees. This return to an environment where a lot of internally displaced persons remain would only exacerbate tensions further. Among the indicators taken into account by the CLPC should be the implementation of simultaneous measures to improve the living conditions of the displaced and thereby avoid the perception of privileged treatment of one category of civilian victims.

The Congolese government should reinforce the institu-tions and resources available to support intercommunity reconciliation and the peaceful management of conflicts. A land commission to arbitrate disputes should be estab-lished based on the model which was successful in Ituri, in Eastern Province. STAREC should be reformed to con-stitute a permanent mechanism to resolve local conflicts. It should be mandated to implement resolutions from the 2008 Goma Conference on Peace and Security, which were for the large part ignored by the provincial and na-tional Congolese authorities. Adequate resources and a transparent recruitment process for additional personnel should be dedicated to STAREC.

Even though the Congolese constitution confers a key role to the provinces, these provinces have serious capacity and operating shortcomings. In the framework of the de-centralisation process, the national government should support their institutions while watching over the rein-forcement of the local and provincial capacities, notably in financial management. A legislative effort in Kinshasa and in provincial parliaments should be engaged to estab-lish the legal and administrative framework necessary for handling issues linked to political representation of ethnic minorities and to discrepancies between traditional justice and the rule of law.

The Congolese government should hold a round table with the local communities, provincial authorities and national representatives. They should establish clear lines of au-thority for appointments in the provincial administration, and should define a consensual procedure so that local communities remove their support for armed groups. They should also adopt a code of conduct for political activities in Kivu.

Under the aegis of the African Development Bank (AfDB), an extraordinary summit of the Economic Community of the Great Lakes countries (CEPGL) should bring together the heads of state from Congo, Rwanda, Uganda and Bu-

rundi. Since the revival of the CEPGL, it has never hosted a meeting at this level. The presidents would publicly dis-cuss a common project for the future of the region which should be concrete and mutually beneficial. The economic development, land issues and population movements must be placed at the centre of their discussions.

The report by the United Nations Experts from December 2008 underlined the existing link between Rwanda and the CNDP of Laurent Nkunda. On 1 October 2010, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights published a report listing the crimes against civilians in the Congo from 1993 to 2003. These two documents help to explain the context of hatred and blame that the Congolese popu-lation still maintains towards the Rwandan population or those of Rwandan origin. The Congolese and Rwandan presidents should seize this opportunity offered by a CEPGL summit to jointly and publicly analyse the trau-matic history of the region and promote the necessary reconciliation between Congolese and Rwandans. DRC partner countries in the CEPGL should commit them-selves at this time to non-interference with the process of re-establishing state authority in Kivu or the political normalisation of the CNDP.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 25

IV. CONCLUSION

As the current frequency of their bilateral meetings shows, the relationship between Presidents Kabila and Kagame has undeniably improved since the end of 2008. This im-provement, encouraged by the international community and resting on a secret agreement, is not enough in itself to stabilise Kivu. The Congolese government and the for-mer leaders of the rebel groups have publicly agreed to reciprocal commitments. No sooner had their word been given then, as with previous attempts to resolve the con-flict, the relationship between Kinshasa and local inter-locutors has unavoidably worsened. Despite official dec-larations about the success of the adopted strategy since the rapprochement between the DRC and Rwanda, the conflict in Kivu continues without credible hope for an improvement.

Secretly negotiating a balance between the particular inter-ests of the parties present around the table has not worked. As soon as an agreement is concluded by ignoring the deeper causes of the conflict, each side tries to maximise their gains during the period of its implementation. The historic, demographic, land, ethnic and economic190 causes of the conflict in Kivu are not always seen as the strategic stakes in the peace negotiations. Admitting the current degradation of security and political conditions in Kivu, and recognising the difficulties in improving the economic situation of the population, the Congolese authorities and their international partners should reconsider their plan for the resolution of the conflict which has been applied since the end of 2008. A different conflict resolution ap-proach centred on the Congolese population is needed.

Nairobi/Brussels, 16 November 2010

190 See Gérard Prunier, Africa’s World War. Congo, the Rwan-dan genocide, and the making of a continental catastrophe (Oxford/New York, 2009). See also Crisis Group report, Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuilding Strategy, op. cit.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 26

APPENDIX A

MAP OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 27

APPENDIX B

MAP OF NORTH AND SOUTH KIVU

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 28

APPENDIX C

REGIONAL COOPERATION

CEPGL Created on 26 September 1976, the Economic Commu-nity of the Great Lakes countries (CEPGL) is a sub-regional body with the goal of developing cross-border economic cooperation. The founding member countries of CEPGL are Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Its stated objectives are to ensure se-curity in the region, to increase trading, to allow for the emergence of collective projects of interest, and also rein-forcing political cooperation between the member states.

The leading authorities of CEPGL are the Conferences of the heads of state and the Council of Ministers of the Member States. The daily functioning of CEPGL is car-ried out by the Permanent Executive Secretariat, located in the Rwandan town of Gisenyi, and by several bodies located in member countries: the Development Bank of the Great Lake countries (BDEGL) based in Goma, the Energy Organisation of the Great Lakes (EGL) in Bu-jumbura, the Agricultural and Zoological Research Insti-tute (IRAZ) in Gitega in Burundi, and even the Interna-tional Society of Electricity of the Great Lakes (SINE-LAC) which has its headquarters in Bukavu.191

The successive crises which hit Burundi and Rwanda at the beginning of the 1990s have considerably affected the functioning of CEPGL and it was put on ice after the col-lapse of Mobutu’s regime. The day after the 2003 presi-dential election in Rwanda, the European Union as well as Belgium included the re-launch of CEPGL on the sta-bilisation agenda for the Great Lakes region. In July 2004 in Brussels, Louis Michel, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, organised a meeting bringing together the Congolese, Rwandan, and Burundian Foreign Affairs Ministers with the aim of dis-cussing the revival of the CEPGL. Several donors (Euro-pean Union, Belgium, African Bank for Development, European Investment Bank) decided to financially sup-port this revival. Burundi and Rwanda nominated their representatives to the CEPGL in July 2007 almost two years before the appointment, under pressure from the

191 “D’une CEPGL à une autre: quelles alternatives dans les stratégies actuelles d’intégration et de cooperation pour le déve-loppement?”, Centre d’Etudes Politiques, Université de Kinsha-sa, p. 2.

European Union, of a Congolese representative Ntumba Luaba in May 2009.192

Since then, several high-level meetings have taken place, including the conference of the presidents of the parlia-ments of member states in Bujumbura in September 2009 and then in Kinshasa in April 2010193 or more meetings with the Foreign Affairs Ministers in April 2007 and in July 2010 in Gisenyi. During the latter, the issue of the overhaul or at the very least the updating of the statutes figured at the centre of the talks. The diplomatic heads of the CEPGL countries welcomed in addition the prospect of re-launching the BDEGL.194 During November 2009, a meeting was held in Goma with the Finance Ministers from the member countries, representatives from the CEPGL as well as donors, in this case the African Devel-opment Bank and Belgium to discuss the future of BDEGL. AfDB and Belgium were committed to finance the restarting of the Bank’s activities on the condition that the CEPGL members recovered their debts from SINE-LAC and the Congolese state-controlled water distribu-tion company (REDGIDESO).195

One of the major challenges of CEPGL’s revival related to the free movement of citizens from the member coun-tries within the countries of the Economic Community. In June 2009, the Congolese, Burundian and Rwandan Di-rectors of the Immigration Agencies as well as the Com-missioner Generals of the CEPGL met to deliver a special travel authorisation with a one-year validity for member state citizens.

The difficulties to put in place such a system were linked first of all to the membership of Burundi and Rwanda in the East African Community, another regional organisa-tion and also to the fact that these authorisations should be accompanied by an identity card which many Congo-lese do not possess. This initiative was not new, since 1980, the states came to an agreement on the free movement of civil servants as well as the sale of a special CEPGL card

192 “Grands Lacs: Ntumba Luaba, représentant congolais à la CEPGL”, Radio Okapi, 7 May 2009. 193 “CEPGL, vers la révision de la convention fondatrice!”, La Prospérité, 2 April 2010. 194 This institution created in 1977 was only really functional between 1984 and 1994 before being declared bankrupt and to ceasing its activities completely. 195 “BDEGL, les bailleurs se disent favorables à sa relance mais posent des conditions”, Radio Okapi, 28 November 2009.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 29 allowing notably businesspeople to travel without a visa from the member countries. Five years later, the conven-tion on the free movement of people and capital and the right to residence in the CEPGL member countries was signed. It anticipated the issuance of an immigration document called a “CEPGL Laissez-passer” allowing citizens of the member countries to circulate freely in the CEPGL countries. Although it was signed by the presi-dents of the CEPGL countries at the time, this convention was never ratified by the Congolese or Burundian parlia-ments.196

One of CEPGL’s main achievements has been without doubt, the running of the hydroelectric power station by SINELAC “Ruzizi II” based in Mumosho in DRC. This produced electricity, purchased exclusively by the national energy companies of the member states (REGIDESO for Burundi, SNEL for DRC and ELECTROGAZ for Rwanda). According to Ntumba Lwaba the Congolese representa-tive, feasibility studies had been done on the rehabilita-tion of power stations to increase production and modern-ize them (“Ruzizi III” and “Ruzizi IV”); these projects could benefit from European Union subsidies. But SINE-LAC must confront many difficulties, first and foremost the insolvency of its only customers.

Amongst the other significant advances of CEPGL, the signing of a protocol of agreement on university coopera-tion in January 2010 in Bujumbura should benefit the mobility of professors, researchers and students in the three countries from the zone. The creation of both a Great Lakes Inter-University network headquartered in Bujumbura, and, in partnership with the American uni-versity Carnegie Mellon, an information technology and communication centre of excellence based in Kigali, are also outlined in this protocol. 197

During the latest conference in April 2010 with the presi-dents of the parliaments of the member states, many rec-ommendations were made to allow them to be debated during the summit of the heads of state of CEPGL, planned for the end of 2010. These recommendations in-clude the issue of the parliamentary dimension within the sub-regional organisation, the reinforcement of dialogue mechanisms in terms of security and combating trans-border crime and facilitating trans-border commerce.

Even though the revival of CEPGL is a reality, a lot of work remains. Delays in the transfer of contributions by member states, late recovery of debts owed by the coun-

196 Bob Kabamba, L’intégration régionale dans l’Afrique des grands Lacs, mythes et réalités, (Editions Luc Pire, Brussels, 2008), p. 23. 197 “CEPGL, Ministres et recteurs pour une coopération interu-niveristaire”, Kongo Times, 8 February 2010.

tries to the CEPGL institutions, weak budgets of these same institutions act as breaks on an effective CEPGL re-vival. In 2009, Dr Gérard Rusuku, Director of IRAZ, stated that he was unable to recruit experts for financial reasons. The fact that no Heads of State Summit has been organised since the CEPGL revival could also be criti-cised. Such a summit would send a strong political signal and allow for a high-level discussion on the activities of this regional organisation.

CIRGL It was under the impetus of the United Nations and the African Union during the second half of the 1990s that the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (CIRGL) was created in order to develop a regional ap-proach to conflict resolution. This initiative was sup-ported by a number of external partners including the United States, Canada, France, Switzerland and also the African Bank for Development, the European Union and the United Nations.

The first summit took place in November 2004 in Tanza-nia and opened with the Dar-Es-Salaam Declaration. The countries present were Angola, Burundi, Congo, Kenya, Uganda, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Zam-bia. During this conference four focus areas were defined: peace and security, democracy and good governance, economic development and regional integration and so-cial and humanitarian issues.

Two years later, on 15 December 2006, the Treaty of Nai-robi198 was signed. This treaty entered into force in June 2010 and includes an implementation document on the above-mentioned Dar-Es-Salaam Declaration, several protocols and action plans, establishment of a special fund for reconstruction and development of the region supported by statutory contributions from member states and by donations from external partners, as well as a re-gional follow-up mechanism. This mechanism anticipates a biannual summit of the heads of state, the creation of coordination mechanisms by each member state, as well as a regional inter-ministerial committee and a CIRGL executive secretariat, the technical body of the meeting coordination, based in Bujumbura.

Joint management of border security, judicial cooperation between member countries, notably in terms of extradi-tion and judicial proceedings, guarantees not to provide shelter to rebel groups on their territory and not to support armed groups on the territory of another member states and also implementation of regional mechanisms to fight against illegal exploitation of natural resources are part of the Nairobi Pact.

198 CIRGL internet site, www.cirgl.org/home.html.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 30 In order to avoid duplications between CEPGL and CIRGL, the latter included the relaunching of CEPGL as one of the main elements in its “Regional action pro-gramme for economic development and regional integra-tion”.199 According to the Executive Secretary of CEPGL, Gabriel Toyi, the two organisations decided to sign a pro-tocol of agreement which aims to harmonise their activi-ties to avoid overlap in activities and responsibilities. A joint commission should determine “the matrix of com-mon activities of the two organisations”.

The next head of state summit is supposed to take place in November in Kinshasa. Amongst the themes which will be addressed, the evaluation of the functioning of the pact on security, stability and development and above all the exploitation of natural resources and the establish-ment of a certification mechanism for the Great Lakes re-gion, will be the object of special attention.

199 Ibid.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 31

APPENDIX D

GLOSSARY

ADF/NALU Allied Democratic Forces/National Army for the Liberation of Uganda, Ugandan rebel group present in North Kivu province.

AFDL Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaïre), a rebel movement which overthrew President Mobutu Sese Seko and brought Laurent Kabila to power following the first war in the Congo (1996-97).

APCLS Alliance des patriotes pour un Congo libre et souverain (Alliance of Patriots for a Free and Sovereign Congo), a dissident faction of PARECO created in 2008 and led by Janvier Buingo Karairi.

CEPGL Communauté économique des pays des Grands Lacs (Great Lakes Countries Economic Community), regional organisation created in 1976 for the economic integration of the DRC, Rwanda and Burundi.

CIRGL Conférence internationale sur la région des Grands Lacs (International Conference on the Great Lakes Region), a forum for political dialogue launched in 2000 and including Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, DRC, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia

CLPC Comités locaux permanents de conciliation (Permanent local conciliation committees), bodies charged with determining if security conditions are present to allow the return of refugees to their areas of responsibility, then to promote their peaceful reintegration.

CNDP Congrès national pour la défense du people (National Congress for the Defence of the People), political movement set up by Laurent Nkunda in July 2006.

CNR Commission nationale pour les réfugiés, a body under the Congolese Interior Ministry in charge of refugees issues.

DDRRR The unit of MONUC in charge of setting up the Disarmament, Demobilisation, Repatriation, Reintegration and Resettlement program for ex-combatants from foreign armed groups operating on DRC territory.

Ex-FAR/ Interahamwe Former Rwandan Armed Forces (Forces armées rwandaises) and a radical Rwandan Hutu militia

whose members fled to Congo after the 1994 genocide and who then regrouped to form the Rwandan Liberation Army (Armée de Libération du Rwanda – ALiR) before forming the FDLR.

FARDC Forces armées de la République démocratique du Congo (Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo), name used to refer to the Congolese national army after the start of the transition (2003).

FDLR Forces démocratiques pour la libération du Rwanda (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda), a Hutu rebel group operating in Kivu. The leadership is mainly composed of Rwandans but over the course of the last two years has recruited more and more young Congolese and has entered into coalitions with Congolese militia.

FEC Fédération des entreprises congolaises (Federation of Congolese Enterprises).

FOCA Forces combattantes Abacunguzi, the FDLR’s military wing.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 32 FNL Forces nationales de libération (National Liberation Forces), the former armed wing of the

Burundian Hutus now transformed into a political opposition party.

FPLC Front patriotique pour la libération du Congo (Patriotic Front for the Liberation of Congo).

FRF Forces républicaines fédéralistes (Federalist Republican Forces), a rebel Banyamulenge group established in eastern Congo.

ISSSS The International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy for Congo.

Mayi Mayi Local militias recruited on a tribal basis, mainly in eastern Congo.

Mixage Process begun in January 2007 merging Nkunda’s battalions with FARDC battalions to create six new brigades.

MONUC Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies en République Démocratique du Congo. United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

MONUSCO Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation en République Démocratique du Congo (United Nations Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo), MONUSCO replaced MONUC on 1 July 2010, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1925.

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

PAREC Ecumenical Program for Peace, Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation, Congolese NGO led by Pastor Daniel Ngoy Mulunda.

PARECO Patriotes résistants congolais (Congolese Patriotic Resistance), originally an anti-CNDP militia composed of Hutu, Hunde and Nande branches, formed in March 2007, mainly in reaction to the ‘mixage’ process.

PIR Police d’intervention rapide congolaise (Congolese Rapid Response Police Unit).

RCD Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie (Congolese Rally for Democracy), a former rebel movement set up in 1998, backed by Rwanda and Uganda and led by former Vice President Azarias Ruberwa.

STAREC Stabilization and Reconstruction Plan in Conflict-Affected Areas.

UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 33

APPENDIX E

ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP

The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an inde-pendent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation, with some 130 staff members on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.

Crisis Group’s approach is grounded in field research. Teams of political analysts are located within or close by countries at risk of outbreak, escalation or recurrence of violent conflict. Based on information and assessments from the field, it pro-duces analytical reports containing practical recommen-dations targeted at key international decision-takers. Crisis Group also publishes CrisisWatch, a twelve-page monthly bulletin, providing a succinct regular update on the state of play in all the most significant situations of conflict or potential conflict around the world.

Crisis Group’s reports and briefing papers are distributed widely by email and made available simultaneously on the website, www.crisisgroup.org. Crisis Group works closely with governments and those who influence them, including the media, to highlight its crisis analyses and to generate support for its policy prescriptions.

The Crisis Group Board – which includes prominent figures from the fields of politics, diplomacy, business and the media – is directly involved in helping to bring the reports and recommendations to the attention of senior policy-makers around the world. Crisis Group is co-chaired by the former European Commissioner for External Relations Christopher Patten and former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering. Its President and Chief Executive since July 2009 has been Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

Crisis Group’s international headquarters are in Brussels, with major advocacy offices in Washington DC (where it is based as a legal entity) and New York, a smaller one in London and liaison presences in Moscow and Beijing. The organisation currently operates nine regional offices (in Bishkek, Bogotá, Dakar, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jakarta, Nairobi, Pristina and Tbilisi) and has local field represen-tation in fourteen additional locations (Baku, Bangkok, Beirut, Bujumbura, Damascus, Dili, Jerusalem, Kabul, Kath-mandu, Kinshasa, Port-au-Prince, Pretoria, Sarajevo and Seoul). Crisis Group currently covers some 60 areas of actual or potential conflict across four continents. In Africa, this includes Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe; in Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh,

Burma/Myanmar, Indonesia, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz-stan, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkmeni-stan and Uzbekistan; in Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Russia (North Caucasus), Serbia and Turkey; in the Middle East and North Africa, Algeria, Egypt, Gulf States, Iran, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen; and in Latin America and the Caribbean, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti and Venezuela.

Crisis Group receives financial support from a wide range of governments, institutional foundations, and private sources. The following governmental departments and agencies have provided funding in recent years: Australian Agency for International Development, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austrian Development Agency, Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Canadian International Devel-opment Agency, Canadian International Development and Research Centre, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Commission, Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, German Federal Foreign Office, Irish Aid, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Principality of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Zealand Agency for International Development, Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Swedish International Development Agency, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, United Kingdom Department for International De-velopment, United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council, U.S. Agency for International Development.

The following institutional and private foundations have pro-vided funding in recent years: Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Charitable Foundation, Clifford Chance Founda-tion, Connect U.S. Fund, The Elders Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, Humanity United, Hunt Alternatives Fund, Jewish World Watch, Korea Foundation, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Founda-tion, Open Society Institute, Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, Radcliffe Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and VIVA Trust.

November 2010

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 34

APPENDIX F

CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON AFRICA SINCE 2007

Central Africa

Congo: Staying Engaged after the Election, Africa Briefing N°44, 9 January 2007 (also available in French).

Northern Uganda: Seizing the Opportunity for Peace, Africa Report N°124, 26 April 2007.

Congo: Consolidating the Peace, Africa Report N°128, 5 July 2007 (also avail-able in French).

Burundi: Finalising Peace with the FNL, Africa Report N°131, 28 August 2007 (also available in French).

Northern Uganda Peace Process: The Need to Maintain Momentum, Africa Briefing N°46, 14 September 2007.

Congo: Bringing Peace to North Kivu, Africa Report N°133, 31 October 2007 (also available in French).

Central African Republic: Anatomy of a Phantom State, Africa Report N°136, 13 December 2007 (also available in French).

Congo: Four Priorities for Sustainable Peace in Ituri, Africa Report N°140, 13 May 2008 (also available in French).

Burundi: Restarting Political Dialogue, Africa Briefing N°53, 19 August 2008 (also available in French).

Chad: A New Conflict Resolution Frame-work, Africa Report N°144, 24 Septem-ber 2008 (also available in French).

Central African Republic: Untangling the Political Dialogue, Africa Briefing N°55, 9 December 2008 (also available in French).

Northern Uganda: The Road to Peace, with or without Kony, Africa Report N°146, 10 December 2008.

Chad: Powder Keg in the East, Africa Report N°149, 15 April 2009 (also avail-able in French).

Congo: Five Priorities for a Peacebuilding Strategy, Africa Report N°150, 11 May 2009 (also available in French).

Congo: A Comprehensive Strategy to Disarm the FDLR, Africa Report N°151, 9 July 2009 (also available in French).

Burundi: réussir l'intégration des FNL, Africa Briefing N°63, 30 July 2009.

Chad: Escaping from the Oil Trap, Africa Briefing N°65, 26 August 2009 (also available in French).

CAR: Keeping the Dialogue Alive, Africa Briefing N°69, 12 January 2010 (also available in French).

Burundi: Ensuring Credible Elections, Africa Report N°155, 12 February 2010 (also available in French).

Libye/Tchad: au-delà d’une politique d’influence, Africa Briefing N°71, 23 March 2010 (also available in Arabic).

Congo: A Stalled Democratic Agenda, Africa Briefing N°73, 8 April 2010 (also available in French).

Chad: Beyond Superficial Stability, Africa Report N°162, 17 August 2010 (only available in French).

Congo : Pas de stabilité au Kivu malgré le rapprochement avec le Rwanda, Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 (only available in French).

Horn Of Africa

Somalia: The Tough Part Is Ahead, Africa Briefing N°45, 26 January 2007.

Darfur: Revitalising the Peace Process, Africa Report N°125, 30 April 2007 (also available in Arabic).

A Strategy for Comprehensive Peace in Sudan, Africa Report N°130, 26 July 2007 (also available in Arabic).

Sudan: Breaking the Abyei Deadlock, Africa Briefing N°47, 12 October 2007 (also available in Arabic).

Ethiopia and Eritrea: Stopping the Slide to War, Africa Briefing N°48, 5 November 2007.

Darfur’s New Security Reality, Africa Report N°134, 26 November 2007 (also available in Arabic).

Kenya in Crisis, Africa Report N°137, 21 February 2008.

Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement: Beyond the Crisis, Africa Briefing N°50, 13 March 2008 (also available in Arabic).

Beyond the Fragile Peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea: Averting New War, Africa Report N°141, 17 June 2008.

Sudan’s Southern Kordofan Problem: The Next Darfur?, Africa Report N°145, 21 October 2008 (also available in Arabic).

Somalia: To Move Beyond the Failed State, Africa Report N°147, 23 December 2008.

Sudan: Justice, Peace and the ICC, Africa Report N°152, 17 July 2009.

Somalia: The Trouble with Puntland, Africa Briefing N°64, 12 August 2009.

Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and Its Discontents, Africa Report N°153, 4 September 2009.

Somaliland: A Way out of the Electoral Crisis, Africa Briefing N°67, 7 Decem-ber 2009.

Sudan: Preventing Implosion, Africa Briefing N°68, 17 December 2009.

Jonglei's Tribal Conflicts: Countering Insecurity in South Sudan, Africa Report N°154, 23 December 2009.

Rigged Elections in Darfur and the Conse-quences of a Probable NCP Victory in Sudan, Africa Briefing N°72, 30 March 2010.

LRA: A Regional Strategy Beyond Killing Kony, Africa Report N°157, 28 April 2010 (also available in French).

Sudan: Regional Perspectives on the Prospect of Southern Independence, Africa Report N°159, 6 May 2010.

Somalia’s Divided Islamists, Africa Briefing N°74, 18 May 2010 (also available in Somali).

Sudan: Defining the North-South Border, Africa Briefing N°75, 2 September 2010.

Eritrea: The Siege State, Africa Report N°163, 21 September 2010.

Negotiating Sudan’s North-South Future, Africa Briefing N°76, 23 November 2010.

Southern Africa

Zimbabwe: An End to the Stalemate?, Africa Report N°122, 5 March 2007.

Zimbabwe: A Regional Solution?, Africa Report N°132, 18 September 2007.

Zimbabwe: Prospects from a Flawed Election, Africa Report N°138, 20 March 2008.

Negotiating Zimbabwe’s Transition, Africa Briefing N°51, 21 May 2008.

Ending Zimbabwe’s Nightmare: A Possible Way Forward, Africa Briefing N°56, 16 December 2008.

Zimbabwe: Engaging the Inclusive Govern-ment, Africa Briefing N°59, 20 April 2009.

Zimbabwe: Political and Security Chal-lenges to the Transition, Africa Briefing N°70, 3 March 2010.

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 35 Madagascar: sortir du cycle de crises,

Africa Report N°156, 18 March 2010.

Madagascar: la crise à un tournant critique ?, Africa Report N°166, 18 November 2010 (only available in French).

West Africa

Guinea: Change or Chaos, Africa Report N°121, 14 February 2007 (also available in French).

Nigeria’s Elections: Avoiding a Political Crisis, Africa Report N°123, 28 March 2007.

Nigeria: Failed Elections, Failing State?, Africa Report N°126, 30 May 2007.

Côte d’Ivoire: Can the Ouagadougou Agree-ment Bring Peace?, Africa Report N°127, 27 June 2007 (also available in French).

Sierra Leone: The Election Opportunity, Africa Report N°129, 12 July 2007.

Guinea: Change on Hold, Africa Briefing N°49, 8 November 2007 (also available in French).

Nigeria: Ending Unrest in the Niger Delta, Africa Report N°135, 5 December 2007.

Côte d’Ivoire: Ensuring Credible Elections, Africa Report N°139, 22 April 2008 (only available in French).

Guinea: Ensuring Democratic Reforms, Africa Briefing N°52, 24 June 2008 (also available in French).

Guinea-Bissau: In Need of a State, Africa Report N°142, 2 July 2008 (also avail-able in French).

Sierra Leone: A New Era of Reform?, Africa Report N°143, 31 July 2008.

Nigeria: Ogoni Land after Shell, Africa Briefing N°54, 18 September 2008.

Liberia: Uneven Progress in Security Sector Reform, Africa Report N°148, 13 January 2009.

Guinea-Bissau: Building a Real Stability Pact, Africa Briefing N°57, 29 January 2009 (also available in French).

Guinea: The Transition Has Only Just Begun, Africa Briefing N°58, 5 March 2009 (also available in French).

Nigeria: Seizing the Moment in the Niger Delta, Africa Briefing N°60, 30 April 2009.

Guinea-Bissau: Beyond Rule of the Gun, Africa Briefing N°61, 25 June 2009 (also available in Portuguese).

Côte d’Ivoire: What's Needed to End the Crisis, Africa Briefing N°62, 2 July 2009 (also available in French).

Guinea: Military Rule Must End, Africa Briefing N°66, 16 October 2009 (also available in French).

Côte d’Ivoire: sécuriser le processus élec-toral, Africa Report N°158, 5 May 2010.

Cameroon: Fragile State?, Africa Report N°160, 25 May 2010 (also available in French).

Cameroon: The Dangers of a Fracturing Regime, Africa Report N°161, 24 June 2010 (also available in French).

Guinea: Reforming the Army, Africa Report N°164, 23 September 2010 (also available in French).

Côte d’Ivoire : Sortir enfin de l’ornière ?, Africa Briefing N°77, 25 November 2010 (only available in French).

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 36

APPENDIX G

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES

CO-CHAIRS

Lord (Christopher) Patten Former European Commissioner for External Relations, Governor of Hong Kong and UK Cabinet Minister; Chancellor of Oxford University

Thomas R Pickering Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador and Nigeria; Vice Chairman of Hills & Company

PRESIDENT & CEO

Louise Arbour Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Morton Abramowitz Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Turkey

Cheryl Carolus Former South African High Commissioner to the UK and Secretary General of the ANC

Maria Livanos Cattaui Member of the Board, Petroplus Holdings, Switzerland

Yoichi Funabashi Editor in Chief, The Asahi Shimbun, Japan

Frank Giustra President & CEO, Fiore Capital

Ghassan Salamé Dean, Paris School of International Affairs, Sciences Po

Stephen Solarz Former U.S. Congressman

George Soros Chairman, Open Society Institute

Pär Stenbäck Former Foreign Minister of Finland

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS

Adnan Abu-Odeh Former Political Adviser to King Abdullah II and to King Hussein, and Jordan Permanent Representative to the UN

Kenneth Adelman Former U.S. Ambassador and Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Kofi Annan Former Secretary-General of the United Nations; Nobel Peace Prize (2001)

Nahum Barnea Chief Columnist for Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel

Samuel Berger Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group LLC; Former U.S. National Security Advisor

Emma Bonino Vice President of the Senate; Former Minister of International Trade and European Affairs of Italy and European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid

Wesley Clark Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

Sheila Coronel Toni Stabile, Professor of Practice in Investigative Journalism; Director, Toni Stabile Center for Inves-tigative Journalism, Columbia University, U.S.

Jan Egeland Director, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs; Former UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator

Mohamed ElBaradei Director-General Emeritus, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Nobel Peace Prize (2005)

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen Former Foreign Minister of Denmark

Gareth Evans President Emeritus of Crisis Group; Former Foreign Affairs Minister of Australia

Mark Eyskens Former Prime Minister of Belgium

Joschka Fischer Former Foreign Minister of Germany

Jean-Marie Guéhenno Arnold Saltzman Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; Former UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations

Carla Hills Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and U.S. Trade Representative

Lena Hjelm-Wallén Former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister of Sweden

Swanee Hunt Former U.S. Ambassador to Austria; Chair, Institute for Inclusive Security; President, Hunt Alternatives Fund

Mo Ibrahim Founder and Chair, Mo Ibrahim Foundation; Founder, Celtel International

Igor Ivanov Former Foreign Affairs Minister of the Russian Federation

Asma Jahangir UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Religion or Belief; Chairperson, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

Wim Kok Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands

Ricardo Lagos Former President of Chile

Joanne Leedom-Ackerman Former International Secretary of International PEN; Novelist and journalist, U.S.

Lord (Mark) Malloch-Brown Former Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Deputy Secretary-General

Lalit Mansingh Former Foreign Secretary of India, Ambassador to the U.S. and High Commissioner to the UK

Jessica Tuchman Mathews President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, U.S.

Benjamin Mkapa Former President of Tanzania

Moisés Naím Senior Associate, International Economics Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; former Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy

Ayo Obe Legal Practitioner, Lagos, Nigeria

Güler Sabancı Chairperson, Sabancı Holding, Turkey

Javier Solana Former EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, NATO Secretary-General and Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain

Congo: No Stability in Kivu Despite a Rapprochement with Rwanda Crisis Group Africa Report N°165, 16 November 2010 Page 37 PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL

Crisis Group’s President’s Council is a distinguished group of major individual and corporate donors providing

essential support, time and expertise to Crisis Group in delivering its core mission.

Canaccord Adams Limited

Neil & Sandy DeFeo

Fares I. Fares

Mala Gaonkar

Alan Griffiths

Frank Holmes

Steve Killelea

George Landegger

Ford Nicholson

Statoil ASA

Harry Pokrant

Ian Telfer

Neil Woodyer

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

Crisis Group’s International Advisory Council comprises significant individual and corporate donors who contribute

their advice and experience to Crisis Group on a regular basis.

Rita E. Hauser Co-Chair

Elliott Kulick Co-Chair

Anglo American PLC

APCO Worldwide Inc.

Ed Bachrach

Stanley Bergman & Edward Bergman

Harry Bookey & Pamela Bass-Bookey

Iara Lee & George Gund III Foundation

Chevron

John Ehara

Equinox Partners

Neemat Frem

Seth Ginns

Paul Hoag

Joseph Hotung

International Council of Swedish Industry

H.J. Keilman

George Kellner

Amed Khan

Zelmira Koch

Liquidnet

Jean Manas

McKinsey & Company

Harriet Mouchly-Weiss

Yves OltramareAnna Luisa Ponti & Geoffrey Hoguet

Michael Riordan

Shell

Belinda Stronach

Talisman Energy

Tilleke & Gibbins

Kevin Torudag

VIVATrust

Yapı Merkezi Construction and Industry Inc.

SENIOR ADVISERS

Crisis Group’s Senior Advisers are former Board Members who maintain an association with Crisis Group, and whose advice

and support are called on from time to time (to the extent consistent with any other office they may be holding at the time).

Martti Ahtisaari Chairman Emeritus

George Mitchell Chairman Emeritus

HRH Prince Turki al-Faisal

Shlomo Ben-Ami

Hushang Ansary

Richard Armitage

Ersin Arıoğlu

Óscar Arias

Diego Arria

Zainab Bangura

Christoph Bertram

Alan Blinken

Lakhdar Brahimi

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Kim Campbell

Jorge Castañeda

Naresh Chandra

Eugene Chien

Joaquim Alberto Chissano

Victor Chu

Mong Joon Chung

Pat Cox

Gianfranco Dell’Alba

Jacques Delors

Alain Destexhe

Mou-Shih Ding

Gernot Erler

Marika Fahlén

Stanley Fischer

Malcolm Fraser

I.K. Gujral

Max Jakobson

James V. Kimsey

Aleksander Kwaśniewski

Todung Mulya Lubis

Allan J. MacEachen

Graça Machel

Barbara McDougall

Matthew McHugh

Nobuo Matsunaga

Miklós Németh

Christine Ockrent

Timothy Ong

Olara Otunnu

Shimon Peres

Victor Pinchuk

Surin Pitsuwan

Cyril Ramaphosa

Fidel V. Ramos

George Robertson

Michel Rocard

Volker Rühe

Mohamed Sahnoun

Salim A. Salim

Douglas Schoen

Christian Schwarz-Schilling

Michael Sohlman

Thorvald Stoltenberg

William O. Taylor

Leo Tindemans

Ed van Thijn

Simone Veil

Shirley Williams

Grigory Yavlinski

Uta Zapf

Ernesto Zedillo