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

[Stan]

Congo's 'Terminator' troops defect

The soldiers are loyal to former rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

The situation in the eastern DR Congo city of Goma, where the troops were based, is said to be tense.

[Marshal Murat]

Sometimes you get more money working for the enemy than for the government, what can you do?

[M-A Lagrange]

Mutinies in the East: beyond the Terminator
http://www.crisisgroupblogs.org/afri...he-terminator/

Let's hope this will go further than a man to be turned into an opportunity.

[M-A Lagrange]

Congo probes alleged Rwandan support for rebelsGOMA, Democratic Republic of Congo (Reuters) - Authorities in Democratic Republic of Congo are investigating allegations that neighboring Rwanda is recruiting and training fighters in support of a new armed movement in its troubled eastern borderlands, a government spokesman said on Monday.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, citing a confidential United Nations document, reported earlier on Monday that among the defectors from the newly formed militia were at least 11 Rwandan nationals who claimed to have been recruited in Rwanda.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...congo-kinshasa

Well, for those in the field it’s not a big news. Even if it has to be taken with caution, they have been recruited in Rwanda does not mean by Rwanda, this demonstrates the crisis in North Kivu goes further than just a manhunt.

[M-A Lagrange]

DR Congo: Rwanda Should Stop Aiding War Crimes Suspect

Field research conducted by Human Rights Watch in the region in May 2012 revealed that Rwandan army officials have provided weapons, ammunition, and an estimated 200 to 300 recruits to support Ntaganda’s mutiny in Rutshuru territory, eastern Congo. The recruits include civilians forcibly recruited in Musanze and Rubavu districts in Rwanda, some of whom were children under 18. Witnesses said that some recruits were summarily executed on the orders of Ntaganda’s forces when they tried to escape.

Providing weapons and ammunition to Ntaganda’s mutiny contravenes the United Nations Security Council arms embargo on Congo, which stipulates that all states shall “take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer, from their territories or by their nationals […] of arms and any related materiel, and the provision of any assistance, advice or training related to military activities […] to all non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

“Permitting Ntaganda to move in and out of Rwanda without fear of arrest sends a message that Rwanda is not serious about helping deliver justice to victims of the war crimes he and his troops have committed,” Van Woudenberg said. “Rwanda’s allies should insist that Rwanda help end impunity in the region, not encourage it.”

A number of officers who joined Ntaganda’s mutiny, including Colonel Makenga, Colonel Ngaruye, Col. Innocent Zimurinda and Col. Innocent Kayna, have past records of serious human rights abuses in eastern Congo. Human Rights Watch, UN human rights monitors, and local human rights organizations have documented ethnic massacres, torture, abductions, widespread sexual violence, and forced recruitment of children committed by these individuals while they were rebel group commanders or officers in the Congolese army.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/03/d...imes-suspect-0

The message is simple and clear: there are no progress in DRC since 2009 and CNDP redition.

[M-A Lagrange]

The United States is concerned by the continued mutiny of officers and soldiers formerly integrated into the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and now operating in North Kivu province as an armed group under the name M23, and by recent reports of outside support to M23.

We support the Congolese government’s efforts to discourage further defections and to bring to justice alleged human rights abusers among the mutinous forces, including Bosco Ntaganda. These efforts are an essential step toward developing a disciplined and unified Congolese army and bringing a sustainable peace to the DRC.

The United States also reiterates its support for the international community’s comprehensive approach to disarming and demobilizing the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a violent armed group responsible for atrocities against civilians in the DRC’s eastern provinces and whose leaders participated in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. We support ongoing efforts to hold FDLR leaders accountable for their atrocities, and we urge FDLR soldiers and dependents to present themselves to Congolese or UN authorities for disarmament and repatriation.

We encourage the DRC, its neighbors, and its partners to work together to prevent M23, the FDLR, and all other armed groups from receiving outside support in contravention of the UN Security Council’s arms embargo on non-governmental entities and individuals operating in the DRC.

The United States also strongly supports the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the DRC, MONUSCO, in particular its active efforts to assist the Congolese government in protecting civilians displaced or threatened by clashes between government forces and armed groups.

Link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/06/191902.htm

MONUSCO mandate should be soon discussed in NY...

[M-A Lagrange]

So ICG published an open letter addressed to the UNSC and MONUSCO SRSG.

Open Letter to the United Nations Security Council on the Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo

History is again repeating itself in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). There is a risk of serious escalation of violence and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Congo (MONUSCO) is failing in its core mandate of stabilisation and protection of civilians. This month renewal of MONUSCO presents a vital opportunity for the Security Council to review its strategy in the DRC.

Eastern Congo is again rapidly destabilising with the defection of Bosco Ntaganda from the Congolese army and the formation of the M23 Movement, another Tutsi-led rebellion allegedly supported by Rwanda. The government, weakened by presidential and legislative elections last November that were widely recognised as deeply flawed, is seizing the opportunity to please the international community by at last pursuing the capture of Ntaganda. President Joseph Kabila seems to be gambling that this is an opportunity to break the parallel structures maintained by the Congrs national pour la dfense du peuple (CNDP) within the army, and to remobilise domestic support around anti-Rwanda sentiment by pursuing a military defeat of the M23. In addition to the fragmentation of the army and new fighting between the Forces armes de la Rpublique dmocratique du Congo (FARDC) and ex-CNDP elements, various Mai-Mai groups have expanded their reach and the Forces Democratiques de Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR) remains a persistent, if diminished threat, as the FARDC fails to control territory.

The stabilisation strategy underpinned by MONUSCO was centred too heavily on an expectation that the 2008-2009 rapprochement between DRC and Rwanda was enough to contain the conflict in the Kivus. The bilateral agreement was based on President Kabila's willingness to integrate Rwanda proxy CNDP forces into the army, but the strategy was short-sighted as it made no provisions for addressing the underlying causes of conflict beyond Rwanda security objectives. The current mutiny underway in the Kivus is perhaps the clearest evidence to date of how little progress has been made in stabilisation. The 2008 and 2012 crises appear remarkably similar, including their ethnic dimension, reported support from Rwanda and the negative impact on civilians, including displacement and potential for increasing ethnic tensions at the community level. These crises are symptoms of unresolved regional and local conflicts over access to land and resources, as well as a failure to achieve structural reform within the security sector, poor governance and non-existent rule of law, and the inability to address the sources of financing for armed groups, end impunity and extend state authority, including through decentralisation.

In this context, it would be a mistake if the Security Council seeks to make only minor adjustments to the current course in renewing MONUSCO mandate. Without a new approach and re-engagement by the Security Council, MONUSCO risks becoming a $1.5 billion empty shell.

http://crisisgroup.be/mail/open-lett...r-to-unsc.html

Let see what will be UN decision. But this shows that since Tom and Stan times in DRC nothing has really changed.
There is a need for a new deal with Rwanda in which Rwanda development is not based on a colonel (or a general) on a hill in neigbouring country.

[M-A Lagrange]

DRC: “If you resist, we’ll shoot you”: The Democratic Republic of the Congo and the case for an effective Arms Trade Treaty

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/in...62/007/2012/en
An excellent report, extremely detailed, highlighting the complex commercial relations between DRC and its weapons and ammunitions suppliers. Among those suppliers you will find USA, South Africa, Switzerland, Egypt, France, Ukraine, China… All the usual suspects.

Also from ENOUGH, additional advocacy for a better mandate to MONUSCO:

MONUSCO—Protection of Civilians: Three recommended improvementsAlthough civilian protection is stated to be the highest priority of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, MONUSCO, the mission continually struggles to fulfill this mandate. Overall, the failure of the U.N. to deal with the FDLR, as a major factor in regional instability, allows for the eastern Congo crisis to fester. The optimal longer term alteration in MONUSCO’s mandate would be to empower and support it, in coordination with other actors in the region, to end the FDLR threat along the lines of the Ituri “Artemis” model. Given MONUSCO’s current mandate on civilian protection, however, this policy brief is focused only on making the existing operation a more successful one.

http://www.enoughproject.org/publica...d-improvements

And finally the dual between DRC and Rwanda is officially on as Lambert Mende, DRC government speaker and information minister, has openly accused Rwanda of supporting the M23 rebel movement.

DRC Government Rules Out Talks With Rebels
DRC Information Minister Lambert Mende says several hundred M23 combatants have been recruited recently in Rwanda.

Mende says the DRC government condemns the inactivity - or worse - of the Rwandan authorities in the face of these serious infringements of the DRC’s peace and security.
He also says the M23 had formed alliances with other armed groups, including the Rwandan FDLR rebels who are operating on Congolese territory.

http://www.voanews.com/content/drc_g...s/1205957.html

And the Rwanda answer:

Rwanda: DRC Should Address Its Own ProblemsThe Rwandan government has demonstrated commitment to a peaceful DRC - first, by helping end the previous conflict when it successfully mediated between Kinshasa and the CNDP rebels in 2009, and then actively and openly engaging the DRC to try and find a peaceful settlement of the renewed hostilities.
Ever since the war broke out more than a month ago, Kigali was not only disappointed but responded immediately, as a responsible and concerned neighbour, by organising a series of high-level political and military meetings between the two countries to help contain the situation. Agreements were reached and a joint plan of action drawn.
Unfortunately, Kinshasa has turned around and sought to stab its partner in the back by embracing false rumours and baseless speculation, even as both sides were just about to release results from a joint verification team.
Nonetheless, DRC can still save the situation. It is never too late to make peace. First, Kinshasa needs to acknowledge that the issues in North Kivu are their own and not anyone else's. They should openly engage with anyone who is genuinely willing to help address the issue. Looking around for scapegoats won't provide the answers.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201206120055.html

My conclusion remain the same as in the previous post... And the ones before.

[J Wolfsberger]

M-A,

The telling observation (from a few posts back) was "... remobilise domestic support around anti-Rwanda sentiment ..."

To what extent is anti-Rwanda/Tutsi propoganda/agitation/sentiment/whatever-we-call-it nothing more than an effort at distraction from internal DRC problems? And if that's all it is, doesn't that distraction make problems worse by further inflaming the situation in the Kivus?

[M-A Lagrange]

John,

The anti Rwanda sentiment exist, it would be stupid and foolish to ignore it.
I believe, as I said previously, that internal problems are at least 50% of the issue. But that said, it is also clear that Tutsi/Rwandophone community in DRC and Rwanda did prepare something.

Among M23 revendications there are:
- better ranks in FARDC for exCNDP,
- better pay,
- priviledged treatment,
- not being deployed out of the Kivu,

All this was partly done by Kinshasa. Therefore you cannot avoid the feeling that there is something else behind. And since DRC/Rwanda 2009 agreement are secret, this opens the door to any crazy theory.

In addition, the proof of recruitment in Rwanda by M23 or Bosco are quite strong and difficult to put asside. (It is not only HRW and UN who have such testimonies and other proof).

Personaly, I do not see the benefit for Rwanda in starting another rebellion in DRC.
Facking a rebellion to put Bosco Ntaganda aside would have make sens. Now it just looks like Rwanda is trying to solve its internal problems (overpopulation, food production, energy...) by inflaming the Kivu. Especially since refugees returns from Rwanda started to create problems in DRC.

I think that UN should have a stronger mandate and especially a stronger obligation to implement their mandate in terms o PoC and political dialog. If FARDC infiltration by Rwanda through CNDP has been/is an issue; MONUSCO infiltration by Kabila is also an issue. Both do not help in solving the crisis.

Hope this answered you question.

Sincerely

M-A

[M-A Lagrange]

Maximum Sentence Mooted for DR Congo's Lubanga
Former rebel leader Thomas Lubanga, who was convicted of conscripting child soldiers to fight in a five-year war that killed some 60,000 people, should get the Hague court's maximum sentence of 30 years, prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo says.

http://allafrica.com/view/group/main.../00017380.html

[M-A Lagrange]

but you can't fool all the people all the time

DR Congo: Security Council deplores recent mutiny, killing and abuse of civilians

“The Members of the Security Council expressed strong concern about the recent developments in the Kivus and the deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation resulting in significant flows of displaced persons and refugees,” the 15-member body said in press statement.

They strongly condemned the mutiny of officers and soldiers, formerly integrated into the DRC armed forces (known by the French acronym FARDC) and now operating in North Kivu as an armed group under the name M23.

They called on all countries in the region to actively cooperate with the Congolese authorities in demobilizing the M23 and all other armed groups, and preventing them from receiving outside support in contravention of the Council’s sanctions regime. They also called for a full investigation of credible reports of outside support to the armed groups.

Let's wait and see the Rwanda reaction. But sounds from Kinshasa are not good...

[M-A Lagrange]

Mutineers seize territory in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
"It looks as though [M23] have taken four or five villages and what I've heard is that the army is planning an offensive to take the positions back," Alex Essome, a spokesman for the UN's peacekeeping mission in provincial capital Goma told Reuters.

A spokesman for M23 said the group had inflicted heavy losses on government troops and seized large quantities of arms during fighting on Thursday, although this could not be independently verified.

Colonel Vianney Kazarama, who is leading the rebels in the area, said his group would consolidate their new positions and repel any counteroffensive. "If they attack us again, we'll chase them off," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...?newsfeed=true

More surprisingly: a member of the UNSC is preventing the DRC Group of Experts to publish their mid term report with all the details on Rwanda backing up M23.

Fighting in the Kivus divides the UN Security Council

Now the diplomatic focus is shifting to New York, where, in response to the allegations of Rwandan involvement, the UN Security Council called yesterday for a "full investigation of credible reports of outside support to the armed groups."

This statement was more than puzzling. At the same time at the Chinese president of the council signed the statement, the UN Group of Experts was in the process of submitting its interim report, which reportedly includes investigations into these very allegations. According to diplomats working for Security Council members, one of their colleagues is threatening to obstruct the publication of the report in the coming week. The justification given for this would be that the submission of the report flouted procedural rules, but the diplomats I spoke to pointed to larger, political disagreements linked to the allegations of Rwandan involvement in the eastern Congo.

http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/

the mysterious case of the misisng GoE report
Making things even more bizarre, the Security Council on Friday released a statement condemning the mutiny and calling for investigation into "credible reports" of outside groups funding the crisis. As analyst Jason Stearns noted in a tweet on Saturday, why is the Security Council asking for an investigation while blocking the one the GoE already prepared for them?

If the motivation for withholding the annex is political, then it's easy to see why the GoE is fighting behind the scenes to include it; the GoE's mission has never been to bow to the political whims of anyone. Their purpose is to collect and analyze facts. If we've reached a day where facts are problematic for the United Nations, then we are in real trouble indeed.

http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/

Let say that after asking for a serious enquiery, some may have changed their mind...
Strange that it leaks through 2 US citizen DRC rexearchers/blogers. Does that mean that US are not the only one trying to save Kagame?

[davidbfpo]

Marc,

In answer to your question:

Does that mean that US are not the only one trying to save Kagame?

Can I suggest the likely suspect is the UK. Rwanda is a member of the Commonwealth, receives considerable UK aid and is of course closely linked to Uganda - who the UK also supports.

Amongst the other non-permanent UNSC members today I cannot see one that would do such a thing? Although South Africa can follow a strange policy at times. The members are on:http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

[M-A Lagrange]

A difficult question to answer to. First of all, please find below a communication from HRW calling to not defend Rwanda.

HRW criticises Rwanda's UN council seat
Human Rights Watch criticised Rwanda's virtual guarantee of a seat on the UN Security Council next year, saying on Monday it shouldn't be on the UN's most powerful body when it is protecting a Congolese ex-warlord indicted by the International Criminal Court.
Implicated in crimes against children

HRW's UN director, Philippe Bolopion, said on Monday if Rwanda wants to be a responsible Security Council member it should cut off all support for Ntaganda, actively seek to arrest him, and surrender him to the ICC.

"By allowing its territory to be used to protect and arm an ICC-indicted war criminal, Rwanda is making a mockery of the decisions of the same Security Council it is slated to join next year," Bolopion told AP.

"Bosco Ntaganda is not only implicated in horrendous crimes against civilians including children, he is also undermining everything the Security Council has tried to achieve at great expense in the region for the last decade."

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/HR...-seat-20120619

I think that HRW resumes very well the situation: Rwanda will be a UNSC non permanent member next year. For many permanent members (at least 2), this means more leverage in the extended UNSC.
This tends to go in the direction given by David on why are there some difficulties in publishing the proof of Rwanda support to M23.

On the other end, DRC gov has been conducting a strong diplomatic offensive in Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and Angola.
An offensive to which Angola responded positively, ensuring DRC of its support and SADC sympathy. This means that South Africa, Zimbabwe and Angola are, until they do something different, on DRC side. (Many articles in French can be found. I just add a link to one: http://www.mediacongo.net/show.asp?doc=20667)

The situation is quite tense in the sub region because we could end in a regional war in Africa, Central Africa against Southern Africa, on Congo soil.
Therefore lights need to be brought on allegations of Rwanda support to M23 (Rwandese have been made prisonners or surrendered).
Hopefully, discussions started as Rwanda foreign affairs minister is in Kinshasa.

And to finish and to illustrate why war criminal in DRC have to be turned to ICC, please find a link to Prosecutor address at Lubanga trial.
Just to remind who people like Bosco Ntaganda are (Bosco Ntaganda was under Lubanga orders in Ituri and he is wanted for similar crimes).

Prosecutor’s Address At Lubanga Sentencing
2. Thomas Lubanga’s recruitment included particularly cruel treatment. Children were abducted, their families forced to accept the situation, instead of obeying their mothers, children had to obey commanders. Children were trained by terror. They were trained to kill and to rape. The children were launched into battle zones where they were instructed to kill everyone regardless of whether they were men, women, or children, all were the enemy. The harm produced by this cruel treatment continue even after demobilization. Those who didn’t die as soldiers, they have permanent physical effects or they have on-going psychological trauma, all them still suffer.
In addition to these two aggravating factors, the Prosecution will like to highlight two aspects that should not be invisible. The crime of recruiting children as soldiers included as a fundamental aspect a gender discrimination, and fourth, the crime of recruiting children as soldiers denied these children and their generation of their right to education. I will briefly elaborate on both aspects:
3. Embedded in the recruitment of girl soldiers was their special use as sex slaves. In the training camps, girl soldiers were the daily victims of rape by the commanders and soldiers. The Prosecution chose not to charge this gender aspect as a separate crime because gender abuse is an essential part of the crime of recruiting girls as soldiers. All the girls recruited would be raped and abused because they are girls.
As emphasized by Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy [the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict] in her amicus brief to this court, girl soldiers are too often invisible. “Wife” is the word used to make this crime invisible. A severe sentence would ensure that the gender suffering of these girls and other girls will no longer continue to be invisible.

http://www.lubangatrial.org/2012/06/...ga-sentencing/

[M-A Lagrange]

From Enough:

Rwanda’s Long Shadow: U.S.-Rwandan Relations and a Path Forward in Eastern Congo

Given the implications of Rwandan involvement in the conflict, the international community should immediately take steps to respond to these allegations. If necessary, they must also reassess the nature of their policies and relationships with Rwanda to ensure that, by extension, they are not willingly complicit in supporting these violations of international law. As documented below there is substantial available evidence linking destabilizing elements in eastern Congo to the government of Rwanda. Those donor governments that continue to provide support to the government of Rwanda must hold Kigali to account for its involvement in destabilizing activities in Congo. At this point, a strategy of diplomatic see-no-evil, hear-no-evil is irresponsible, hypocritical, and ultimately destructive.

To that end, the government of the United States should immediately take the following steps:

1.Ensure that the recent investigation conducted by the U.N. Group of Experts on Congo is published and leveraged as a step toward ending external intervention in eastern Congo. Further, push the Security Council to provide additional resources for the Group to continue the investigation in the lead-up to the release of the 2012 annual report.
2.Based on the accumulated evidence, begin a formal policy review with a specific focus on the overall U.S. military and developmental aid policy. Send a clear signal that intervention in eastern Congo is not acceptable. Base such action on Section 105 of the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006, which includes provisions for eliminating aid to countries if the Secretary of State “determines that the government of a foreign country is taking actions to destabilize the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
3.Partner with the government of Congo and the United Nations to develop a more aggressive strategy to dismantle the Rwandan Hutu militia, the FDLR, thus removing Rwanda’s main stated reason for its continued interest in eastern Congo.

http://www.enoughproject.org/publica...-eastern-congo

DRC government just addressed a letter to UNSC to ask the UN to come and play an active role in preventing the situation to go amok.
Not really the best news in such context.

[M-A Lagrange]

Top Rwandan officials backing Congo rebels: leaked U.N. findings

(Reuters) - U.N. experts have evidence Rwanda's defense minister and two top military officials have been backing an army mutiny in the east of neighboring Congo, according to notes of their briefing to a closed-door U.N. committee seen by Reuters on Thursday.

An M23 officer contacted by Reuters denied receiving Rwandan support, adding that any such backing would have allowed them to gain ground in the battle with regular Congolese forces.

"If a single time the Rwandans had supported us we wouldn't be on this hill - we would be far away from this. This action is purely Congolese," Colonel Vianney Kazarama said by phone.

The UN briefing was verbal. A written report of the Group of Experts findings is due in coming days to be submitted to the U.N. sanctions committee ahead of its final publication. There is no indication at this stage of any push to impose UN sanctions on either Rwanda or Congo.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85L00420120622

In addition, additional exCNDP has left FARDC to join M23. Was not smelling good but starts to smell really bad at this stage.
Especially when Lambert Mende, the DRC gov speaker, says that they are not in a logic of war but in a logic of broken peace.

[J Wolfsberger]

Perhaps I'm unfair, but 1. and 2. (from post #627) appear to be feel-good happy talk. However, point 3. would go a long way toward reducing the violence - after the violence involved in "dismantling" subsides. But they have overlooked DRC promotion of violence against Tutsi in the Kivus, which leads to the formation of Tutsi militias, which prompts Rwandan support, which provokes formation of Hutu militias, et cetera ad nauseum.

A change in policy by the DRC is required, along with recognition that it will take the DRC a long time to build trust among the Tutsi that they can disband their militias without fear of slaughterer. It's a very tough sell.

[M-A Lagrange]

John,

I agree with you on the inferno spiral of the Kivu. I am just not that sure who started the militia (Hutu, Hunde, Tutsi, Nande, Bashi ???).

My points are:
1) there is a need of change of policy on both sides of the border,
2) there is a need of change of policy in US (backing Rwanda just does not work anymore),
3) there is a need for Kagame to clean his house if Rwanda is really not involved,
4) If Rwanda is involved and there are proofs then USA should help to solve rather than hide the issue.

Situation is getting hot in North Kivu. There are many ways to solve this.

[M-A Lagrange]

even if it hurts.

Here is a link to the DRC Group of Experts report.
Unfortunately, the crucial annexes with proofs of Rwanda involvement have been removed. And it's USA who is guilty of it.
I can understand why and how a delayed publication might help. But anyways, I also past a link to the join NGO call for publication.

The report is difficult to access in its pdf format. Therefore, I encourrage to download it in WORD format.
Here is the link: http://documents.un.org/mother.asp
Symbol: S/2012/348

NGO Coalition Urges Full Disclosure of Evidence Linking Rwanda to Congo's Rebellion
22 June, 2012 - 19:55
The Enough Project joined a coalition of human rights organizations, which includes Open Society Foundation and Humanity United, urging the U.S. government to pressure the U.N. Security Council to release all of the U.N. Group of Expert’s most recent findings related to Congo. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the groups expressed concern that the publication of a crucial annex linking the government of Rwanda to the M23 mutiny in Congo was being postponed for political reasons.

http://www.humanitariannews.org/2012...ngos-rebellion

In addition, DRC MPs have called for an increase of defense 2012 budget...

To quote DRC speaker: "we are not at war with Rwanda but in a broken peace relationship."
I do not know what that means but for me DRC is on the path of war and so is Rwanda. Nothing good will come out of this.