The complexity of Kigali’s relationship with Kinshasa and the possible way tensions between the two countries could be reduced

As fighting recently flared up between Tutsi rebels and government forces in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Rwanda government has found itself, once again at the centre of yet another international controversy. Kinshasa has been joined by poorly informed, often prejudiced international observers and `experts’, and local and international human rights groups in a blanket condemnation of Kigali as the mastermind of the rebellion. In the mad rush to point fingers and apportion blame, the complexity of the problem in eastern DRC has been lost, making a solution much more difficult to craft.

Eastern DRC presents the most complex puzzle to the top leadership of the Rwanda government’s security, military, political and diplomatic establishment. DRC has an absentee state in most of its territory. But this problem is much more pronounced in the eastern region. Because power abhors a vacuum, the absence of even rudimentary infrastructure for basic administrative and security functions of the state has created conditions for the emergence of warlords commanding local militias to fill the void. But because of its complex history and land ownership wangles, most of the emergent militias are ethnic-based. They emerged primarily to defend the land rights of one community against another.

To extend its administrative reach and pretend to be institutionally present in most of Eastern Congo, the central government in Kinshasa has often signed agreements recognising these militias and their control of those specific areas. Warlords become governors and military commanders. But it also means that the government in Kinshasa has little effective control over its appointees. The state in Congo is therefore a mosaic of ethnic chieftains led by belligerent overlords. President Joseph Kabila is more of a “warlord-in-chief” than a commander-in-chief. Hence, Kinshasa can issue orders and threats; but local commanders are at liberty to disregard or accept them – making the governance of DRC even more difficult.

And this is how the recent flare up in Eastern DRC began. Kinshasa accused the National Congress for the defence of the People (CNDP), the Tutsi militia, commanders of refusing to deploy troops as it has instructed them to. This is unusual since commanders should obey, not question orders. Refusal is tantamount to mutiny. CNDP argues that they are not sure of their security if deployed in other areas. They claim that 50 of their soldiers who were deployed out of the eastern region were killed in cold blood. Kinshasa has promised a commission of inquiry to establish what actually happened but nothing has come of it – yet.

Bosco Ntaganda, a Congolese Tutsi and leader of the CNDP (now M23), is an indicted war criminal by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In its naivety, and ignorance, the international community has been putting pressure on an impotent Kabila to arrest him. Perhaps it is in response to this pressure that Kabila issued orders transferring commanders hoping to separate Ntaganda from his troops, orders M23 rejected. Technically, that amounted to a mutiny and Kinshasa responded by launching an offensive against M23.

Although Tutsi militias are the main focus of news and international diplomatic activity, they are not the only ones. There are other commanders and warlords in eastern Congo who are in rebellion against Kinshasa. They claim to defend their communities against hostile neighbours. In fact, in a strange twist of fate, some of the Tutsi militias in Congo have allied with Hutu militias to fight the Kinshasa government. This is because for these local communities in eastern DRC, there is no distinction between Hutu and Tutsi. They see both of them as Banyarwanda because they share a common language and culture and came from “the same place”.

This brings us to Rwanda’s regional dilemma. In part of eastern DRC is the FDLR, an extremist Hutu rebel group that has anything between 4,000 and 6,000 troops under its command. One of its missions is to overthrow the Kigali government; the other to exterminate all Tutsi. It has allied with some local communities in DRC to fight the “Tutsi scourge,” a factor that gives FDLR daunting political weight. FDLR does not distinguish the Tutsi of Congo from those from Rwanda. This has created an automatic alliance between FDLR and other eastern Congolese communities hostile to the Tutsi. By extension, these dynamics have created a shared threat between the leaders of Rwanda and the Tutsi militias in eastern DRC. Therefore Tutsi militias in eastern DRC are, by the nature of the threat they face, natural enemies of the FDLR and thereby natural allies of the government in Kigali.

Yet Kigali finds it difficult to officially and actively support its natural allies in Eastern Congo. If you talk to top security and military strategists of the Rwanda government, they feel wary of Tutsi militias in DRC. They complain that these militias and their leaders are “Congolese”. By “Congolese”, the RPF leaders are not merely referring to citizenship but to culture, attitude and behaviour. The typical Rwandan Tutsi is a reserved with Spartan discipline, qualities shaped by decades of harsh life in refugee camps. The Congolese Tutsi is boisterous and lax. Consequently, the Rwandan security personnel accuse Congolese Tutsis of being undisciplined. The Congolese Tutsis accuse Rwandan security officials of being control freaks.

These differences are not merely at the level of behaviour and attitude but also at the level of operational method. The leaders of Rwanda would prefer full control over M23; the Congolese Tutsis insist on independence. Although they share a common ethnicity, the two are as different culturally as an Athenian was from a Spartan in the 5^th century BC. So there is constant tension between the two. Kigali is acutely aware that if it supported Tutsi militias in Congo without effective control over their operations, it would risk being held responsible for their actions, like if they committed mass killings. Yet Kigali cannot completely abandon them. For example, if Tutsi militias were defeated, there is a real risk of genocide against ordinary Tutsis by Hutu extremists and other Congolese communities hostile to them. Kigali cannot politically afford to sit by a watch such a thing happen right at its border.

Therefore, to understand the complexity of the current flare up in fighting in DRC is to first appreciate the fears and temptations people in Kigali face. First, the Tutsi militias in Congo, even without Kigali’s active support, act as a buffer between Rwanda and the FDLR. Second, they protect local Tutsi populations that face existential threats from the FDLR and other Congolese communities. Third, these militias and their warlords ensure order in a region where the Congolese state in almost absent. Therefore, their defeat would present a key security challenge to Rwanda. Hence Kigali finds itself in a position where it cannot support the Tutsi militias in Congo while at the same time it cannot condemn their cause.

To resolve this dilemma, Kigali adopted a two pronged approach: One short term and tactical; the other long term and strategic. In the short term, Kigali would not support any Tutsi militias in eastern Congo. However, it would not act against them either – and this is exactly what Kinshasa and the international community would like to see. Thus, whenever individuals inside Rwandan society are involved in helping their kith and kin across the border, Kigali refuses to play the role of Congolese policeman. It just turns a blind eye and pretends it does not know. For example, assuming Rwandan security services got intelligence that some individuals inside the country were actively raising funds and meeting some of the militia leaders. Kigali would not arrest them. It would pretend it did not know. Assuming Rwandan officials heard that one of the militia leaders was in some village in Rwanda, the government would again pretend it does not know.

It is in this context that some human rights groups that claim that some of the rebel leaders enter Rwanda could be telling at least a slice of the truths. Kigali is clear on two things: It is not going to play cop for Kinshasa or the international community. At a press conference in Kigali on June 19, President Paul Kagame made it clear: these warlords live in DRC which has 17,000 UN troops costing US$ 1.2 billion a year – 50 percent of Rwanda’s annual budget. Why can’t this force arrest these rebel commanders with all the capacity it has? Why transfer the responsibility to Rwanda?

Second, Rwanda government officials are not allowed to deal with rebel leaders and other Congolese in whatever shape and form. When information emerged that some top generals in the Rwanda security services had been involved in meetings and financial transactions with Congolese businessmen early this year, President Kagame placed them under house arrest.

However, Kigali understands that this cannot be a long term policy to solving the problem. The source of Rwanda’s security vulnerability is the long standing governance issue in DRC i.e. the absence of an effective and functional state. The solution for DRC lies in reconstructing the state. Indeed, ironically Kigali is even more concerned about security in the eastern DRC than Kinshasa. For example, Rwanda is positioning itself as the region’s main high-end tourism destination. Its prize in this strategy is the mountain gorillas right at the border with DRC. Nothing threatens this strategic interest than insecurity in eastern DRC as it scares away tourists – but most especially rich ones whom it charges top dollar.

Secondly, Rwanda is making a couple of strategic investments right at the border with DRC. First, it is developing a methane gas plant in Lake Kivu, just a stone throw from the border with Congo, to produce 150 MW of electricity to supply the country. Kigali has further signed a multimillion dollar joint venture investment with New Forest Company, a consortium of Britain’s high net worth individuals along with HSBC Bank and the European Investment Bank. The consortium are going to cut and replant Nyungwe Forest and develop a regional timber and furniture industry on one hand and on the other, produce 100MW of electricity. Finally, Kigali is beginning to increase its mining and export of Coltan – located in the same place.

Kigali is acutely aware that insecurity in eastern Congo would be a strategic vulnerability in its pursuit of its Vision 2020. And it is also aware that it cannot attract and sustain serious investments if eastern DRC is controlled by warlords – however closely tied to Kigali they may be. Rwanda’s leaders are acutely aware that their vital national strategic interests are therefore best served by a stable and effective state in DRC. Kigali also knows that it cannot manage Congo. But it is confident that it can help Congolese find a solution to their problems.

As a foreign policy strategy, Rwanda has long abandoned its earlier faith in influencing regime change in neighbouring states. By 2004, Rwanda had also abandoned any ambitions to fight proxy wars, realising that they may achieve short term tactical objectives at the price of creating long term strategic vulnerabilities. This lesson was driven home by Kigali’s fallout with former Congolese president and erstwhile ally, Laurent Kabila; coupled with its fallout with Uganda in Congo. The lesson from these two experiences, every strategist in Kigali will tell you, was that helping someone capture power in another country does not automatically guarantee a durable alliance between you and them.

RPF had been supported by Uganda under President Yoweri Museveni. But this did not sustain the alliance as the two countries degenerated into hostilities and finally fought in Congo. Equally, Rwanda had helped Kabila and installed him president in Kinshasa. They turned enemies and fought pitched battles. Kigali realised that it has always fought more allies than those it was not related to. The lesson sunk: you can make a king, but you cannot control them once you have made them. So Kigali has no ambitions to make another king in Congo; its own strained relations with Congolese Tutsi always works as a reminder that it should not rely on them entirely. The view is that government should always seek to deal with the leaders their neighbours produce rather than seek to influence who emerges as leader.  Therefore, Kigali decided that in the long term, it needed to engage Kinshasa and leverage whatever connections it had with the Tutsi militias to arrive at a solution for eastern Congo. Rwanda offered to help bring the militias to agree with Kinshasa on a peace deal. Kinshasa agreed to integrate the militias into its army but leave them in control of their troops to protect their communities. The two sides also agreed that Rwanda would send its army into eastern Congo to fight the FDLR. Even today, Rwanda has its special forces inside eastern DRC who have been conducting joint operations with the Congolese army. This offers the best possible solution to the DRC crisis and should be the agreement that the international community should push Kagame and Kabila to uphold rather than condemn one side.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (30)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

WHY KAGAME ALWAYS
written by Tina, July 01, 2012

Life is the most precious gift .you mean pple still compete for space with animals and gorillas in the forest: who advises those rebels in this day and age where the shortest cut to ICC is thru what they are doing.
Where there are minerals there is confusion eg SeriaLeone -Diamond, Liberia -Rubber,Congo Diamond&Gold.
UN,Congo and PK know the truth and who is hoodwinking the other but with minerals and whether the Hutu really forgave the Tutsi any thing can happen. Rwanda has a problem of trust and stereotype from pple outside bse of circumstances under which their leaders died eg Rwegema and Habrayarimana this should not derail PK he should concentrate on his devt plans and guard his boarders in Uganda, there are stereotypes about every tribe but some how we leave in harmony.

• 
• +4
• 
• 

Confused again
written by Rajab K, July 02, 2012

If we were to generalize, all conflicts in the DRC will be because of weak leadership in Kishasha. But if we were to draw specifics, then, the conflict in eastern DRC is mainly as a result of a spillover in Rwanda. For instance, you mention that some militias in eastern Congo see themselves as Banyarwanda (not as Hutu or Tutsi). Yet, in the same region the two main functionaries i.e, the CNDP and FDLR are founded along these lines. You go on to mention that the leadership in Rwanda, looks at Rwandans in Congo as Congolese. How so gullible is the leadership in Rwanda? Then, why did they have to fight and cause a loss of nearly a million people claiming that they needed to go home? Maybe that is how also the late Habyarimana looked at them, as Ugandans?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Rajab K, July 02, 2012

Rwanda faces serious challenges that require viable minds. For the President to question why the 17,000 UN troops can not arrest the situation in eastern Congo shows at what extent he analyses the political dynamics at play: not only in the region but the globe. When hundreds of thousands were losing lives in 1994, the western media was particularly concerned about the tourism industry (the gorillas). Now, for Kagame to just sit and think that the UN will wash away his troubles, is a little bit a beggar's ride. Reading into Rwanda's strategic development plan gives you hope, but is it tapping into what the real problems of Rwanda are? To me, Land remains Rwanda's biggest challenge any solutions that seem to resolve this are truly welcome.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Kagame has a legitimate mandate to stabilize eastern Congo
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 02, 2012

The latest UN’s unrepentant resolve to implicate Rwanda into the DRC’s security mess at the hands of various semi-autonomous armed rebel outfits that is fast degenerating into a full-scale security crisis deserves a more critical look. UN’s solitary accusation of Kigali for supporting CNDP, now M23, without roundly condemning the heinous motive and atrocities at the hands of FDLR and other Hutu extremists and anti-Kagame rebel groups which are hell-bent at toppling the Kigali regime and exterminating the Tutsi sub-ethnic population is an act of diplomatic hypocrisy shrouded in bad faith.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 02, 2012

FDLR, together with other Hutu armed groups such as Rally for Unity and Democracy (RUD) and its Urunana military wing and the other extremist military wing called the Rasta, which are all operating at liberty in DRC, pose a strong and immediate existential threat both for the Tutsi’s in DRC and the Kigali regime. Kagame can only ignore this at national peril; he is nationally duty-bound to protect Rwanda’s security and sovereignty. By seeking to implicate Kagame into the mess without addressing the full gravity of the problem makes one view the UN’s motive and its ill-informed reports on Rwanda’s role in DRC with credible suspicion.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 02, 2012

As a politico-military movement, composed of former government soldiers, Interahamwe militiamen, and Hutu civilians who fled RPF offensive after aiding the 1994 genocide, FDLR has a history tinted with atrocious human rights violation. Unfortunately, FDLR has not only enjoyed incredible support and veiled condemnation by the international humanitarian actors, but has continued to rejuvenate its ranks and has since become the largest armed group in the Kivu provinces. Its membership is actually ranged by recent studies between 6.000 and 7.000 combatants aside many a number of civilian population.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 02, 2012

And the problem is bigger. The UN mission for Congo (MONUC), believed to be the largest UN peacekeeping mission globally, with a total of about 22,067 uniformed personnel including 16,666 troops, 699 military observers, 1,066 civilian police and 3,639 international civilian personnel and a total of US$746 million operational budget, has failed to protect civilians against the operations of many armed groups in DRC. The several protests by civil society, government and students against MONUC in Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Kananga, Bukavu, Goma, and Matadi, among others, should awaken UN to its embarrassing failure on its Chapter VII mandate.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 02, 2012

Besides, the government of DRC is not only weak, leaving the enormous central African DRC unmanaged in most of its parts, but its own national army, FARDC, has a tainted history and is viewed by different actors as part of DRC’s security threat. If UN seeks to be seen as an impartial actor and/or observer in DRC security concern, it should open an honest conversation on all these challenges and seek dialogue with all the stakeholders. Singling out Rwanda is not only an act of naivety, but unsustainable in the long run.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Who is the biggest Pretender here?
written by Rajab K, July 02, 2012

DRC became a failed state under Mobutu, ever since then it has been on life support just like Israel's Ariel Sharon. If we are to talk about honesty, it will be hypocritical to even imagine that Joseph Kabila is in position to arrest the situation. So, blame then shifts to the UN. But Chapter 8 (52) reads, Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Rajab K, July 02, 2012

One problem is the continuing theft of mineral resources, such as coltan, by occupying forces. One estimate has the Rwandan army making $250 million in 18 months from the sale of coltan, even though Rwanda has no coltan deposits. Not only can the DRC not make any money from its mineral wealth, due to its inability to tax anything in rebel-held areas, but the wealth is also used itself to finance insurgent activities.
As Mwenda observed, Kagame is more interested in the "peace" of eastern Congo than Kishasha. My problem is, how is this "peace" defined by Kagame? Is it when the CNDP are in control?

• 
• +1
• 
• 

DRC, A STANDARD MEASURE FOR AFRICAN LEADERSHIP
written by Rajab K, July 02, 2012

I will equate DR Congo to a blind tourist in possession of foreign currency who is at the mercy of a CSR at the counter. More than for professional conduct, it will be a question of the CSR's moral uprightness to serve the blind customer with the right amount of change. Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda all went into Congo to help although it turned out that one of the helpers came out with simply a "walking stick" yet again fighting another helper on two different occasions before walking out. Kagame more than any other leader understands the weaknesses of Kishasha. If he is "the new breed of African Leaders" then it is only sad if he exploited the misery of a country for his own.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Mr.
written by Audax Muperasoka, July 02, 2012

Sincerely the UN must feel ashemed, it is there for nothing than a pretex of misusing the resouces available. Somehow we are not shocked because it seems UN is nolonger operating as the eyes of genuine international community want to see. Rwanda need to stand strong against the propaganda of the so called "International community watchmen" And I do suggest that, the neighbouring countries must help to find a permanent solution for Congo. That calls for the unworthy UN soldiers to depart as soon as possible.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Business
written by Eagle eye, July 04, 2012

Many of these international so called "institutions" are simply business entities...When RPF made the UN lose billions of dollars in 1994 which they were lobbying for repartriation of refugees,claiming it a disaster case,RPF said it would repartriate them itself and denied the existance of a disaster case.Of cos RPF did this intentionally make the UN lose out on the deal,because either way,it was going to pocket 70% of the money and use the 30% to stirr more problems.From that day,many influential individuals who run international organisations had a bone to pick with RPF,and since then,have jumped at every opportunity they get

• 
• +4
• 
• 

...
written by Lt .Col Adam kifaliso, July 04, 2012

Musingunzi and Andrew are 2 different sides of the same coin , true ??? Always airing their expert views from the same platform using different microphones. Talk about Uganda where the Budget was announced but yet to be debated on , m7 is buying time to confuse Ugandans ,he knows he has no money and the cost of administration is unbearable , he has raided internal private savings of NSSF, told Mutabile to issue bonds Uganda cant afford to cover , donors are scaling down their help, I'm sure m7 will resort to stealing funds for the sick ,starving and immunisation, why cant m7 see that its time to go ?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Andrew seems to always side with Rwanda
written by D.Oduki, July 05, 2012

Andrew seems to always side with Rwanda on every issue ... from an outsiders view.
But then again. He always comes up with very plausible facts !
Almost Good enough for me to say that Andrew is truly Independent.
I however feel Andrew , you are smart enough to come up with facts that make Rwanda look bad and the other side look good.
But then again, why should you ?
Keep up the good work !

• 
• +3
• 
• 

To my friend, Afande Lt Col
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 05, 2012

Lt, I have agreed and disagreed with Andrew on several fronts, depending on my reasoned conviction. I am sure that's how far an honest intellectual discourse should go. The UN and its international counterparts are the chief architects of the security mess in DRC, to their advantage. Kagame is trying to stabilise eastern DRC to the advantage of Rwanda he's duty-bound to protect. The moral question is whether it's acceptable for non-Africans to steal from Africa, and condemn Africans for stealing from their brothers, for their national security. I have never been a cessationist, but am convinced the only solution for DRC is to split it into two or three different independent states. We shall discuss Uganda's budget at the right forum. I salute you!!!

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Congo Suffering from a Curse of Extractive Wealth
written by Ocheto, July 05, 2012

Congo is an archetype of an African country that has relied and continues to rely on extractive industry (mineral wealth) to sustain itself (pay its gov't bills, provide social services and hope for some long term investment to spur some now largely thus far illusionary economic development). The UN, the several African countries (Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Angola, and Namibia) that converged in Congo at the end of Mobuto and NGOs were and are still in it for the mineral wealth that is buried in the ground. Indeed as if in mockery Mwenda admittedly states that Kagame and Rwanda's interests are economic. The best economic strategy for foreign and indigenous thieves is to keep the situation untenable, unstable and precarious, not a stable Congo.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Mr.
written by Mwalimu, July 05, 2012

It's my first time to notice that an ethnic journalism also exists. Mr. Mwenda has proven to be this type of mediocre journalist in exposing his ignorance and limited knowledge in open sources. He does not mention Uganda and Rwanda who accepted to play mad dogs in the achievement of a non-African agenda. Mr. Mwenda is a partisan and awkward journalist.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Wrong connection between Congolese and Rwandan Tutsis
written by Didier Blessing, July 05, 2012

One of the best articles I have ever read on conflicts in eastern Congo. I must say that I agree with your article expect on one things: The correlation you drew between the Rwandan Tutsi and Congolese Tutsi's; That is not true. Rwandans do not have any intention to help the congolese Tutsi militias..!!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Lt .Col Adam kifaliso, July 06, 2012

OK Sir Mr Musinguzi , I'm waiting for debate on the Budget , can you Imagine ? It was announced but not debated on , you cant run a country like a person firm , this what dictators don't understand ..!

• 
• +1
• 
• 

PARTISAN ANALYSIS
written by Capt. Edward Twalire, July 06, 2012

Whoever wrote this is surely on the payroll of Kigali. Terrible journalism.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Sabiti, July 06, 2012

So there's no denying by Andrew that Rwanda is supporting militias in Eastern DRC? International community will hold Rwanda accountable for crimes against humanity in DRC. Let's not forget that, the more we destabilize DRC, the more we are enabling them to build their own military capacity and it will be a cycle of war (without end) in the great lakes region. The war we (Uganda and Rwanda) are currently exporting to DRC will come back knocking at our doors.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

mr
written by eriessanja, July 06, 2012

this is the work of America and its friends the europe to confuse Africa

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Lt, Col, I have no hope in Uganda's budget rituals
written by Denis Musinguzi, July 06, 2012

Lt, let me hope we'll not be accused of personalizing the debate. In response to your curiosity, my stance about Uganda's budgeting practice is more pessimistic. The budget process is too complext and idealist to be realistic, and too good to be true! People's time is wasted in many pre-budget conferences; interests of the masses are neither genuinely sought nor translated into tangible budgetary items to be accomplished within specified timeframes. The budget just a mere figurative representation of how much M7 and his cadres will share among themselves. The Parliament shouts not to leverage popular but individualistic benefits. It's you and me poor ordinary citizens that suffer endless and meaningless budget rituals!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Sabiti, July 07, 2012

Yes, Andrew always sides with PK and M7. In fact Andrew is their cheer leader. Whoever cheers killers is a killer himself. When the regimes change, we will make sure he is delivered, together with M7 or PK, on a silver platter to the ICC. He can brag now; but he will beg for death and death will be a luxury we shall deny him. Yes it will happen at the most appropriate time. This is not a threat but reality. Enjoy and brag as much as u can for now.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by mugabe, July 07, 2012

This is all American game,they have build big embassies in kigali and bujumbura targeting congo wealth.Andrew stop wolokoso

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Andrew has surely changed!!!
written by Comrade Ado, July 13, 2012

I used to be an ardent believer in Andrew`s objective analysis. I used to buy every edition of The Independent, when indeed it was independent. But lo and behold! something radically happened (a reverse Damascus experience - when a Paul reverted to a Saul) and Andrew started murdering his journalistic conscience and put himself at the service of the perpertrators of vice and ignominy in the Great Lakes regions, perpaps for percuniary or ego benefits and we lost one another. Today many of us just skim though The "Independent" on line just to check what next Andrew, our erstwhile hero, is upto.

Andrew you need to rediscover your journalistic soul, lest you will be a sad piece in the history of journalism. This purpoted expert analysis on the DRC conflict does not add up!!!

Bob

• 
• +0
• 
• 

PR mercenery
written by gatama, July 20, 2012

Well, the presentation started well but got distorted when Mwenda started the analysis of Kigali strategy. Just Like UN, kigali is a stakeholder in the crisis in Eastern Congo. And what is happening in congo are spillovers of Rwandan mess- Kigali involvement is both defensive (the fact that FDLR are its threat) and egocentric (plundering DRC's resources). Even if Kigali hires PR merceneries like Mwenda, this fact cant be erased. its pitty and disturbing that DRC's problem started in 1961 when CIA killed Patrice Lumumba and that the 17,000 UN forces are doing "tourism" there. the only solution (may be) is for Kinshasha to let Eastern congo become an independent state.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by Margaret S. Maringa, July 21, 2012

1. Every movement needs to develop and sustain healthy grassroots (and not just for a source of cheap fighters).

2. Battle uniforms must be replaced by sharp business suits (and the RPG weaponry must be replaced by PhDs).

3. The dreams of the ordinary Congolese people (inter-tribally) must now be translated and transformed into tangible development of community-based projects (agritechnology, hospitals, roads, schools, colleges, etc).

4. The careless destruction and looting of community resources must be stopped immediately.

4. Security and restoration fo the most vulnerable citizens (women and children) should become the topmost "manifesto".

This four-prong strategy is the SECRET WEAPON that will finally bring peace to Eastern Congo !!!!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by louis, July 28, 2012

eagle eye, long time nga u are lost get in touch , buddy. ican see you are still intelligent as ever. louis

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment Preview