Gazing in the Congo (DRC): the dark heart of Africa (2006-2017)

[M-A Lagrange]

The situation is getting bad in Goma after the International Brigade deployed.
Since mid july, 2 offensives have taken place. During the first one, from 14 to 17 Jully, M23 rebels pulled back from their positions 7 km from Goma up to Kibati, 14 km from Goma. This is still not the 20km far from Goma stated in 24 November 2012 Kampala ICGLR statement that M23 keeps on refering to.

What is more worrying are the crossborder shelling between DRC and Rwanda. According to US State Department, there are credible reports that M23 fired into Rwanda territory in order to create an international incident.
Below the US State Department communique:

Statement on Situation in Eastern Congo
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
August 25, 2013

The United States is alarmed by the escalating fighting between the M23 armed group and the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) in eastern Congo. We condemn the actions of the M23, which have resulted in civilian casualties, attacks on the UN peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO), and significant population displacements. We are also concerned by reports of shelling across the Rwandan border, including credible UN reports that the M23 has fired into Rwandan territory. We call on the M23 to immediately end the hostilities, lay down their arms, and disband, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

We commend the actions of MONUSCO to protect civilians in and around Goma. Attacks against UN installations and personnel are unacceptable. We are deeply concerned about evidence of increasing ethnic tensions in Goma and call on all parties to avoid any actions that could exacerbate such tensions.

We urgently call on the DRC and Rwandan governments to exercise restraint to prevent military escalation of the conflict or any action that puts civilians at risk. We reiterate our call for Rwanda to cease any and all support to the M23 and to respect DRC's territorial integrity, consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions and its commitments under the Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework. We also call on the DRC to take all prudent steps to protect civilians and to take precautions that FARDC shells do not inadvertently land in Rwandan territory. We urge MONUSCO and the Expanded Joint Verification Mechanism to promptly and thoroughly investigate charges of cross-border shelling. We urge all parties to facilitate access for humanitarian organizations assisting populations in need.

The United States fully supports the Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework signed by the DRC, Rwandan, and neighboring governments in February 2013 as the basis for a political dialogue to resolve the longstanding conflict in the region. We also believe any political settlement of the conflict must include accountability for human rights atrocities committed by leaders of the M23 and other armed groups, including the FDLR. The United States stands ready to consider further targeted sanctions against the leaders of the M23 and other armed groups and those who support them.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/08/213488.htm

[M-A Lagrange]

While Rwanda is blocking sanctions against M23 rebel military leaders Kazarama and Mbonezi, the battle is raging on around Goma.

SA snipers wreak havoc
A second South African soldier has been injured in heavy fighting in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and South African Special Forces snipers have killed at least six senior rebel officers.
A South African soldier said yesterday that teams of Special Forces members had been engaging the rebels.
"The engagements occurred as helicopters attacked M23 supply lines between Goma and Rwanda. Our snipers were specifically targeting rebel command-and-control posts. It appears from information coming from the front that the officers were busy planning attacks on DRC and UN bases," he said.
The national secretary of the SA National Defence Union, Pikkie Greeff, confirmed the involvement of snipers: "Our sources in Goma have revealed that at the time of attacks [on M23 supply lines] by UN Ukranian Mi24 attack helicopters, snipers from our Special Forces were engaging the rebels. They have killed a number of rebels, with reports of one being shot from a distance of 2.2km."
He said at least one South African soldier was shot in the leg.
"[Our information is] that within the next two weeks SA Air Force Rooivalk attack helicopters are to be deployed to join the clashes . they will provide much-needed fire power to be used to drive the rebels from their positions," he said.
M23 president Bertrand Bisimwa said yesterday: "There was a big offensive this morning . It was the UN that was shooting at us, from their helicopters. It's the Tanzanian and South African troops that are on the frontline. It's them we see first."

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/...rs-wreak-havoc

At the same time, RWanda and DRC keep on shelling each other, "by mistake"...

[jmm99]

sounds like a negative thing for at least some rebel groups. Whether that score is material would, I suppose, depend on how many rebel groups there are - a circumstance best known to those on the ground there and not to me.

In any event, the result, due to the use of aimed fires, inspired this piece of doggerel:

Snipers rule;
Air shooters drool.

Fifty years ago, the Congo saw a number of South Africans who could shoot straight - as opposed to popping off AKs into the air. Times have changed - or have they ?

It all seems to boil down to another piece of doggerel - oui, Belloc said it more elegantly, but I like this version:

The Maxim Gun -
Wot we haz got,
And they haz not.

So, Marc-Andre, thank you for keeping us updated on this continuing mess.

Your post contained this quote, which initially struck me odd:

The national secretary of the SA National Defence Union, Pikkie Greeff, confirmed the involvement of snipers: "Our sources in Goma have revealed that at the time of attacks [on M23 supply lines] by UN Ukranian Mi24 attack helicopters, snipers from our Special Forces were engaging the rebels. They have killed a number of rebels, with reports of one being shot from a distance of 2.2km."

This compelled me to find Pikkie (apparently a goto guy for media asking about SADF) - and lo, twitter link:

National Secretary of the South African National Defence Union ( SANDU) the largest military trade union in the SANDF. AS ALLOWED BY THE CONCOURT!

OK, so Pikkie is, in effect, the Super Shop Steward for the SADF; but what the hell is the CONCOURT. I learned that is South Africa's Constitutional Court, which held in its 1999 decision that SADF members had a constitutional right to trade union membership.

Thus, one learns something new every day.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Snipers rule;
Air shooters drool.

Fifty years ago, the Congo saw a number of South Africans who could shoot straight - as opposed to popping off AKs into the air. Times have changed - or have they ?

Regards

Mike

Mike, the weapon used was the NTW-20, 14,5mm

See article here (in Afrikaans):

http://www.volksblad.com/nuus/2013-0...n-meer-as-2-km

And search google images for NTW-20

[M-A Lagrange]

While negotiations in Kampala are stuck, despite the call from ICGLR member states to find a solution within the coming 14 days, Rwanda has more and more difficulties to hide its "go to war" agenda. Some might say this is just another show of force demonstration by Kigali regime who faces more and more difficulties domestically.
Let's hope it is so:

Regional powers fear Rwandan invasion of DR Congo

Southern African nations Saturday, September 14, expressed concern at the growing number of Rwandan troops on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo and said it hoped an invasion was not imminent.

A statement from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional body said it was concerned "at the deployment of Rwandan troops along the common border" and "expressed the hope that Rwanda is not contemplating to invade."

Issued from a summit in Namibia attended by Congolese President Joseph Kabila, the statement called on the country's neighbors to "contribute to peace, security and stability of the DRC."

Congolese troops backed by a special United Nations force launched a fresh assault against M23 rebels late last month in DR Congo's north east.

http://www.rappler.com/world/regions...invasion-fears

Rwanda is facing elections this month (September) and the regime has to demonstrates that FDLR threat is still present. So several grenades also blew up in Kigali... The worst of us would even go as far as saying that several in RPF are trying to clear huge populous areas in Kigali to build malls are the ones behind those attacks...
Make up your mind.

Police: 2 Killed in Grenade Attacks in Rwanda
Police spokesman Damas Gatare said Saturday that a grenade exploded Friday night at a busy market place in the Kigali suburb of Kicukiro, killing one person and wounded 14.

Another grenade was detonated on Saturday in the same area, killing one person and wounding eight, he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...wanda-20257150

[M-A Lagrange]

Rwanda held very successful elections as they were quiet. But this does not diminish the fact that despite being peaceful, their might have been massive frauds.
According to journalist in Rwanda, numerous non distributed electors’ cards were kept in the voting posts. Not really a problem according to the Rwanda national election commission which stated that electors came to collect their elector cards the same day as the vote.
Once again, figures are what they are in Rwanda. I let you make your opinion:
Participation: 98.8%
Votes in favor of RPF: 76.22%
3 parties have been able to access the national assembly.
Here 2 links on the Rwanda elections (in French)
http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/rwanda-r...1731987_24.php
http://rnanews.com/politics/7622-le-...s-legislatives

The main result of those elections without any challenge is the liberation of the FARDC soldier arrested by Rwandan policemen in Goma, DRC, the day of the vote. This after he was accused of conducting threatening activities in Rwanda but cleared by the border joint verification mechanism from ICGLR.

In the mean time, negotiations in Kampala are stuck in the sand and it is not the behind doors facilitation by Uganda that will manage to get an agreement between Kinshasa and M23 before the UN general assembly and the signature of the Addis-Ababa peace agreement framework.

[jmm99]

The FIB was authorized by Resolution 2098 (2013); Adopted by the Security Council at its 6943rd meeting, on 28 March 2013 - S.C. Res. 2098, U.N. Doc. S/RES/2013 (28 Mar. 2013). Its most pertinent provisions (besides its basis in Chapter VII "Peace Enforcement", whose first major use was the Korean Police Action of 1950) appear to be in paras 9-12 dealing with the FIB, esp. para 12:

12 ... (a) Protection of civilians

(i) Ensure, within its area of operations, effective protection of civilians under imminent threat of physical violence, including civilians gathered in displaced and refugee camps, humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders, in the context of violence emerging from any of the parties engaged in the conflict, and mitigate the risk to civilians before, during and after any military operation;
...
(b) Neutralizing armed groups through the Intervention Brigade

In support of the authorities of the DRC, on the basis of information collation and analysis, and taking full account of the need to protect civilians and mitigate risk before, during and after any military operation, carry out targeted offensive operations through the Intervention Brigade referred to in paragraph 9 and paragraph 10 above, either unilaterally or jointly with the FARDC, in a robust, highly mobile and versatile manner and in strict compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law and with the human rights due diligence policy on UN-support to non-UN forces (HRDDP), to prevent the expansion of all armed groups, neutralize these groups, and to disarm them in order to contribute to the objective of reducing the threat posed by armed groups on state authority and civilian security in eastern DRC and to make space for stabilization activities; ...

The bolded items delineate some policy issues. First off, how will the UN define "civilians" (which require "effective protection") ? What does "strict compliance" with IHL mean ? What does "neutralize" mean - kill, capture or convert as in the Phoenix Program of Vietnam; or something quite different in the contemplated "targeted offensive operations"?

Within three months of the resolution, a similar set of questions was asked by Bruce 'Ossie' Oswald, The Security Council and the Intervention Brigade: Some Legal Issues (June 6, 2013):

The key provisions concerning the Brigade are found in the operative paragraphs 9, 10 and 12(b) of UNSC resolution 2098. The UNSC mandated the Brigade "to carry out targeted offensive operations . . . with the responsibility of neutralizing armed groups."

The role of the Brigade is also to "prevent the expansion of all armed groups . . . and to disarm them in order to contribute to the objective of reducing the threat posed by armed groups on state authority and civilian security in eastern DRC and to make space for stabilization activities."

Based on the references to the armed groups made elsewhere in the resolution, it is reasonable to assume that the Brigade is mandated to undertake offensive operations against, for example, the M23, the Democratic Liberation Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, the Lord's Resistance Army, and various Mayi Mayi groups.
...
The UNSC stipulated that the legal framework applicable to the Brigade in carrying out its functions and tasks is international law, including international humanitarian law.
...
Key Legal Issues

The UNSC's innovation in establishing an offensive military force to "neutralize" non-state armed actors in the DRC raises two broad and important legal questions. The first is whether the Brigade, as a matter of law, should legally be considered a party to the conflict in the Congo. The second question concerns the verb "neutralize" and the powers that the Brigade might imply from it.

Oswald is a professor at the Melbourne Law School; and was one of the primary draftsmen of the Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations (The Copenhagen Process was launched on 11 October 2007 and was concluded in Copenhagen on 19 October 2012).

As to "neutralization", Oswald finds a number of open policy questions:

A further question regarding the establishment of the Brigade is why the UNSC thought it necessary to stipulate that the Brigade is mandated to 'neutralize' the armed groups. Did the UNSC use that word as a term of art to mean that the Brigade should "render [the armed groups] ineffective or unusable"? If yes, did the UNSC intend to distinguish the Brigade's mandate from other operational terms such as "contain," "defeat," "destroy," "disrupt," or "exploit"? If the term is being used in a specific way, what ramifications does that have for the Brigade's functions and tasks? Might "neutralize" mean that targeting or capture of the rebel forces is limited to making the rebels ineffective? Furthermore, it is not clear why the UNSC felt it had to add "neutralize" to the Brigade's mandate when the Brigade, as a subordinate component of MONUSCO, would have the ability to "take all necessary measures" to complete its mandate. Is the Brigade to interpret "take all necessary measures" more narrowly because of the word "neutralize"?

If the term "neutralize" is read broadly, it is reasonable to assume that the Brigade is mandated to target armed groups with lethal force. In line with the usual concept of offensive operations, the Brigade would be able to conduct ambushes, deliberate attacks and hold ground against any armed group. It therefore follows that the Brigade's rules of engagement would be amended to take into account the offensive nature of the operations, and that the international humanitarian law principles of necessity, proportionality, humanity and distinction would be considered accordingly - that is, from a different perspective to how those terms would be applied when self-defense is the justification for the use of force. The rules of engagement presumably would also have to deal with whether the basis for targeting is that a rebel is a member of an organized armed group, or whether he or she is taking an active part in hostilities.

Thus, Oswald and I seem to take a similar broad definition of "neutralize"; however, he would (based on the Copenhagen Process) probably take a more restrictive definition of "combatant", and a more expansive definition of "civilian" than I.

- to be cont. -