Google+
Friday 24th of October 2014 08:59:44 PM
 

You buy the Truth, we pay the Price
Banner
 

How to save Congo from the UN

E-mail Print PDF

The best way to save DRC is to let it burn. From the ashes of catastrophe lies the chance for a solution

Last week, M23 rebels matched into the eastern Congolese town of Goma with very little resistance. The Congolese army simply dropped their weapons and ran. International television footage showed them leaving the town in haste, driving Armored Personnel Carriers and tanks at full speed. Meanwhile the rebels, armed largely with light infantry weapons, marched on foot and some on civilian trucks into the town. How can a mechanised army give up a strategic town to a light infantry force so easily?

Two myths perpetrated by the UN were exposed. First, that the rebels get arms from Rwanda. Second, that the rebels are a murderous lot hated by the population. Having left most of its heavy weapons in the town and large caches of arms and rounds of ammunition, it was apparent that the rebels get their arms from the incompetence, cowardice and corruption of the Congolese army. Indeed, Kinshasa had already fired its Chief of Staff of the army accusing him of selling arms to the rebels.Then the residents of Goma lined the streets in large numbers to cheer and welcome the rebels as liberators.

Most people I have met trust the UN `experts’ and international media when they claim that Rwanda and, most recently, Uganda, are the ones supplying arms, ammunition and soldiers to the rebel movement. Yet UN `experts’ are often ignorant, sometimes naïve, on occasion gullible but mostly self-interested. They depend too heavily on Congolese government intelligence for their `facts’. Sadly in DRC, political discourse is clouded with wild rumors, a factor that makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. These `experts’ also have interests to advance or protect and therefore come to the job with a predetermined agenda.

Their claims of heavy weapons shipments from Rwanda are naive. If Rwanda moved weapons across the border, even amidst the darkest night, American satellites in space would get clear pictures of it. Rwanda knows this already given that when it tried to deny involvement in Congo in 1996, the US just brought out pictures showing their troop and weapons movements. Kigali owned up.  Unless the Barack Obama administration is in cahoots with Kigali, evidence of Rwandese arms supply to M23 and their details would be in the press by now.

The fall of Goma combined with the aforementioned manner in which it happened presents the international community with a challenge in dealing with Africa. How can a well-equipped army tasked with the sacred obligation to defend a town and protect the population run away without a pitched fight in the face of a rag tag rebel force? Does a state that presides over such a corrupt, cowardly and incompetent army deserve international support? What incentives will make ruling elites in Kinshasa build a viable army?

Historically, the recognition of a state’s claim over a given territory by other states was predicated upon it demonstrating effective military and administrative control over it. If you failed in this, other effective states could take the territory from you. For instance, if Prussia failed to project power along the Rhine frontier, Austria could take it away. If Bunyoro exhibited weakness, Buganda could lay claims on Mubende. This forced states to constantly improve their capabilities. To preserve themselves, smaller states built alliances with other weaker or powerful neighbours. The American colonies united largely out of fear of Britain. Cooperation is the most powerful instrument of competition.

The history of Europe illustrates this process best. European monarchs had to fight wars abroad in order to ensure security at home. So the classical state was a war-making machine; war made states and states made war. The threat of losing territory forced states to build capabilities to control every inch they possessed. And such capabilities needed money. States could raise money from loot and booty. But this was unreliable. Sometimes, wars could be long and costly. So loot alone could not sustain an army in the field for years. Unpaid troops could munity and match back on their capital. Monarchs learnt that they needed to continually grow their economies to provide them a reliable source of income, taxation or public borrowing.

And this is what gave states a stake in the prosperity of their people. If your citizens are very rich, your tax returns from them or your ability to borrow from them would be higher. If the wealth is held in a fixed asset like land that cannot be hidden, you can be rude and still collect most of the taxes on it. If the asset is fluid and easy to hide like capital, you need the cooperation of the taxpayer to maximize your tax returns. Otherwise they can take evasive action and hide their wealth. Or those who possess it can withhold their productive effort and deny you revenues.

Thus, where tax revenues come largely from movable assets that can be hidden, you need the consent and cooperation of asset-holders to maximize your returns. So rulers devised means – like parliaments – as institutions to negotiate with asset owners for revenues. This gave propertied citizens power to decide the tax rate, the level of borrowing and public expenditure. The American war of independence from the British crown was fought with the battle cry: “No taxation without representation”. This incentive structure worked well to facilitate the evolution of effective states by punishing weakness and rewarding strength. It also gave birth to democratic representation.

In many ways, post independence ruling elites in Africa have really enjoyed a free ride. Their claims to sovereignty and territorial integrity need no longer have to be defended by strength – economic, military or otherwise. They are protected by international law through the UN. Elites in Kinshasa can ignore, neglect or disregard their sacred duty to build state infrastructure to serve their citizens in the east. The international community will subsidise these failures with international aid and protect their borders from other more promising claimants. The presence of a kind, sympathetic and generous international community has been one of the major sources of state weakness in Africa.

And so it was that immediately M23 exposed what a fiction the Congolese army is, the UN Security Council immediately did its usual double standard and condemned the rebels, and issued a tough resolution asking them to leave the town. Indeed, the same UN Security Council members are supplying similar rebels in Syria with weapons. On the day they condemned M23, the British foreign secretary, William Haig, went on television to announce that Great Britain was following the US and France in recognising the Syrian rebels as the “legitimate representatives of the people of Syria”. Never mind that the Syrian government, in spite of its authoritarian ways, has not reached the level of barbaric savagery of the Congolese state.

At a summit in Kampala, Presidents Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame, perhaps bullied and pressured by the UN, surrendered to its unrealistic demands. In a meeting with DRC’s President Joseph Kabila, they also joined the choir of those calling on M23 rebels to pull out of Goma. Perhaps one gives them credit for also making Kabila accept to meet and negotiate with the rebels over their legitimate grievances. Museveni, Kagame and Kabila all came to power through armed struggle. Would they have been happy, when victory looked certain, for the UN or neighbors to threaten action unless they halted their struggle?

The Congolese state is more a fiction than a reality. There is little semblance of a state in most of the country. What the international community recognizes and accepts for a state is a greedy cabal of elites in Kinshasa involved in a spree of anarchical grabbing of their national resources, which they steal and invest abroad. Whatever exists of their army goes unpaid for months. So it lives by scavenging on the citizenry from whom it loots to pay itself. Many Congolese citizens are protected by their own ethnic militias from the national army, whose major preoccupation, whenever it gets into contact with them, it to loot, rape and pillage.

This is the state of affairs that the international community, in its ignorance, naivety and sometimes self-interest is defending against the legitimate cries of victims who have taken up arms to challenge this injustice. Although international media are focused on the M23 because they share a common ethnicity with some in the leadership of Rwanda, there are over 20 ethnic militias in eastern DRC fighting Kinshasa. Rwanda would need super-human ability to organise such large-scale insurrection. In fact, it is self evident that a combination of an absentee state, mountainous terrain, thick forests and rich minerals is enough incentive for rebel groups to form in eastern Congo. They would not need Rwanda’s encouragement – or anyone else’s for that matter.

As I write this article, Congolese state elites in Kinshasa are on radio, television, and newspapers making open calls for genocide against their own Tutsi citizens on radio, television and newspapers. Meanwhile, the international community either looks the other way or sometimes acts as an accomplice in this scandal. Never in my life did I imagine that the UN, after the horrors of the Nazis and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda would side with a government calling for genocide against its own people. Now the UN calls victims of state terror perpetrators of that terror while calling architects of terror in Syria liberators.

There is one nation that was saved from the “salvation” of the UN and the international community – Rwanda. In 1994, Tutsis in that country stared mass extermination in the eye. In the face of widespread massacres, the UN did what it does best – it withdrew its troops. One million people were slaughtered in 100 days. For moral reasons, everyone I have read or listened to has condemned the UN for that withdrawal – including the RPF leadership. I have always celebrated that single, inhuman act of the UN. It saved Rwanda. It created room for that country’s internal actors to solve the problem decisively even though at high human cost.

The UN was trying to impose a textbook solution on an extremely complex and volatile situation in Rwanda in 1994. It wanted a ceasefire between government troops and rebels i.e. between genociders and their victims. After the ceasefire, it wanted a government “of national unity” (national destruction would be better used) between killer and victim. And this was in circumstances where each side felt strong and was confident of victory. International pressure would have created the most conflict-ridden coalition government in history. This is because the belligerents did not see mutual accommodation as a better alternative to further combat. Hence such a government would have been characterized by low intensity but widespread violence over many years, making it difficult to reconstruct the Rwandan state.

Precisely because the UN withdrew, the Rwandese had to fight their way out of their own mess. That taught them a lesson – that there is no fifth cavalry of the international community to save them. The decisive victory by RPF destroyed its opponent’s organisational infrastructure – thus allowing the victor to mount relatively unified action to reconstruct the state, rebuild the economy and begin reconciling the people. Today, Rwanda has the most effective state in Africa. International intervention in Rwanda in 1994 would at best have achieved short-term humanitarian objectives and saved lives. But this would most likely have been at the price of crippling the growth of a more durable solution for the country over the long term.

The international community can blackmail neighbours with cutting aid and other sanctions to force them to pressure rebels to stop their offensive. However, that will no solve the inherent crisis of governance in Congo. The solution for Congo’s deficiencies in managing itself will come from that country’s elites. And this will happen when they are left to pay the price of their political folly. Congolese elites indulge in political practices that undermine the evolution of a robust state and enrich a few at the expense of the many. Their politics is detrimental to the strengthening of their national institutions and the growth of their economy. Until they face – not just a strategic threat – but existential threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity over their vast country, the ruling elites in Kinshasa will not change their ways.

In many ways, Congo’s crisis shows the dangers of foreign aid to poor countries – whether that aid is financial, technical, military or humanitarian. Our governments are subsidized with foreign financial aid, a factor that has disarticulated them from their citizens. For every fiscal shortage, they look to Washington, London, Paris or Brussels for aid rather than ways to improve the productivity of their own firms and farms. Humanitarian aid has disarticulated our people from the political struggles that are shaping their destiny. Thus, rather than join political and armed movements fighting for control of their nations, our civilians retreat to refugee camps where the international community gives them food, shelter and medicine as they vegetate as passive spectators of the struggle.

Baby-sitting Congo and scapegoating Rwanda and Uganda as the source of trouble will not solve the deeply entrenched problems of governance in that country. The international community’s everlasting attempts to prop the smoldering edifice of the Congolese state is the problem, not the solution for that country. It has blinded Congolese elites from seeking internal social integration and from building a much more viable state.

The best the world can do for Congo is to sit on its laurels and let it burn. From the ashes of such catastrophe, lies  a glimmer of hope that a more durable solution has a better chance to emerge. The country will either break-up or remain unified by the emergence of a political and military movement that will impose order. Left on their own, the Congolese people will triumph. Sustained on the drip of the international humanitarian community, Congo will remain the mess that we see today – with an army that cuts and runs at the sound of the first shot.

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


Comments (53)Add Comment
Amnesia?
written by Rajab Kakyama, December 02, 2012
"The best way to save DRC is to let it burn." I think Andrew has fallen on a wrong book of physics lately. Absurdly he's applying this wrong physics to a wrong situation. In physics there are two types of change, i] physical change and ii] chemical change. Unfortunately for Mwenda, what happened in 1994 in Rwanda the people who died can not be brought back to life. If DRC is left to burn Mwenda, the lives lost undergo a chemical change. We should not put peoples lives under unproven experiments.
Congo's mess serves UN's interests
written by Denis Musinguzi, December 02, 2012
Good analysis Andrew, but I wonder why you shy from saying the UN is part of the greedy cabal of predatory elites in Kinshasa. The UN, with their level of sophistication and unmistaken calculations, can neither be gullible nor ignorant, certainly not naive but pure and squarely self-interested. UN is aware they're peace spoilers in Congo, intentionally so to serve their geo-strategic and economic interests. The double standard on siding with a rebel outfit against a more stable state in Syria and their round condemnation of M23 which fights to liberating citizens from their predatory state clearly exposes their hypocricy. Their action is a sad tale of a beautiful poetry gone stale! I detest their hypocricy with passion!
...
written by Omeros, December 02, 2012
It would help your case significantly (or even somewhat), Andrew, if you could refute the allegations of the Group of Experts with facts that confound those allegations. But it seems that you are not up to that task. Instead, you mudsling, ascribing ill motives and intent to the UN, without actually dealing with the allegations themselves. You dispute the UN's methodology in gathering evidence and suggest their work to be sloppy and overwhelmingly reliant on narratives fed to them by the Congolese military. However, the charge of sloppiness seems ill-made. Anticipating such charges, the Group adopted a more stringent methodology by requiring that allegations be backed by five independently corroborated sources - the usual standard of evidence requires three such sources.
...
written by Omeros, December 02, 2012
Furthermore, aware that it would be accused of an over-reliance on Congolese sources, the Group was quick to attribute the lack of Rwandan official sources to the fact that the Rwandan government refused to co-operate with the investigative process, ignoring or declining requests for official meetings on no less than five occasions. To blame the report for failing to represent adequately Rwandan views when the Rwandan government spurned every opportunity to make its views known is a little brazen. You know that you are on shaky ground when you are left to claiming that, testimony of witnesses and participants be damned, the only acceptable form of evidence of troop and supply movements from Rwanda is American satellite pictures!
...
written by Omeros, December 02, 2012
And, by the way, "the UK does the same in Syria" is not an answer to the allegations being made against Rwanda.
Great analysis
written by Kayumba, December 02, 2012
Mwenda, you are spot on the real issue. But UN is not naive, rather it is fulfiling the purpose for which it was established for by the imperialists. Africans should stop trusting UN. Congo will never have have peace until they first discover who they are and who their real enemy is. Neither Rwanda nor Uganda is thier enemy. They enemy is UN.
Let it what?
written by Mukiibi Mugerwa, December 02, 2012
To suggest that we let it burn is the most irresponsible statement. Why cant we let Somalia burn?. What of Hitlers Germany?, What of Palestine?, Southern Sudan etc.

Already 6 million people have died there since Mobutu. Now you look at pictures of little children trecking several miles to run away from trouble, their eyes full of fright and you say "let it burn"?. Andrew Mwenda!
...
written by Gen Adam kifaliso, December 03, 2012
Andrew it could have better if you wrote something about Kamuntare's wedding , hope you don't feel more Kagamesh than Toorish .M23 have to withdraw , disarm and disband before the war knocks on gates of Kigali .Tutsi insurgency and expansionism will not be tolerated and will meet the might of international force . Tiny poor Rwanda stands no chance and Kagame might be brought before courts of law to face justice not to forget in old demented mentor the now hopeless dictator of Uganda
The Messed -up Congo!
written by Tony Banda, December 03, 2012
Andrew, thank you for being a lone voice in providing this objective analysis of the messed up Congo. Given the skewed view the international press and the "so called Congo experts" show towards the M23 and their "so-called allies" , one would be forgiven not to conclude that they are "paid propagandists" of Kinshasa regime! I

What is more perplexing for me is how the international community have bought into the narrative advanced at the UN Security Council by France and the so -called " Congo group for experts" against Rwanda - two very well known parties whose biases against the current Kigali regime are well known.

The Messed-up Congo!
written by Tony Banda, December 03, 2012
If anybody needs reminding , below are a few instances :
1) France has never forgiven Kagame and RPF for kicking out their genocidal friends out of Rwanda , many of whom have been given sanctuary in France for the last 18 years , and will use any information whether factual or not to try and tarnish the image of the current Kigali regime. Hence, it shouldn't surprise anyone that France is now enthusiastically leading the charge at the UN Security Council against Rwanda ( M23?).
2) How objective can statements made by a spokesman of the UN peacekeeping department - Herve Ladsous- be construed regarding M23/Rwanda when it has been reported that as then -Deputy Permanent Representative for France "he issued statements about the 1994 Rwanda genocide that have been criticized".
The Messed-up Congo!
written by Tony Banda, December 03, 2012
3) Steve Heges, head of the "Congo group of experts is reported to have sympathies for the FDLR outfit - a group that participated in the 1994 Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda and continues to pursue the same agenda against the Congolese Tutsis and is also known to have outright hatred for the current Kigali regime . How on earth can any objective person expect such an individual to produce an unbiased report on any issue where Rwanda is alleged to be involved?
Andrew , as you rightly say " no matter how much the international community tries to blackmail Congo's neighbours through aid cuts and other sanctions in order to pressure M23" , Congo problems will remain due to international community's unwillingness to prescribe the right medicine for Congo's ills!
Reply to Omeros
written by Andrew M. Mwenda, December 03, 2012
Omeros, you raise a legitimate point that i should refute the allegations of the "experts." however, if i were to do that, it would need a book, not an article. Besides, GoR has made a detailed rebuttal showing how fanciful these allegations are. Secondly, I do mention that if Rwanda moved one artillery piece across the border and trained and sent troops to fight in DRC, US satellites in space would capture everything. It has happened before. Therefore, the claims of arms supplies to M23 are that fanciful. Why would they need weapons from Rwanda when Kabila's army is all the time running away and leaving more arms to the rebels than the rebels need?
Reply to Omeros
written by Andrew M. Mwenda, December 03, 2012
My last sentence should have began with "In any case..."
On the point of verification with five different sources. that is a claim by the "experts" as to their methodology. they do nothing to show that they actually had such different sources - unless you want us to believe them because they say so. Besides, even if they used 10 sources. I can walk on the streets of Kampala and get 100 sources to inform me that Museveni owns Umeme and Stanic Bank; that his wife owns Garden City shopping Mall etc. Would that make my allegations truthful?
Reply to Omeros
written by Andrew M. Mwenda, December 03, 2012
For example, using the same methodology and level of verification, the same UN "experts" claimed that Brig. James Kazini had established a company with Col. Edison Muzoora through which the two were exploiting congolese minerals. this is in circumstances where i knew Muzoora and Kazini had been involved in ferocious combat in Bunia with Muzoora trying to stop Kazini from trading in minerals. indeed, I also had minutes of the army high command where Muzora accused Kazini of using soldiers to do business. finally, i knew that kazini had deported Muzoora from Congo in the boot of car. how could the "experts" claim a business alliance between mortal enemies if they had good sources?
Reply to Omeros
written by Andrew M. Mwenda, December 03, 2012
In fact, so poor is the "experts'" report that they claim a particular cannon (artillery piece) that M23 had was supplied by the rwanda army and they give its serial numbers. yet they have the same cannon in their 2008 report classifying it as belonging to the DRC army. I can go on adfinintum on these inconsistencies. all these contradictions are contained in the GoR rebuttal which many don't read. please read it. anyone writing about congo would begin by being suspicious of evidence given through interviews with congolese. because institutions of research and verification like mass media, universities and think tanks are absent or poorly developed, false rumors tend to grow and become official and common facts.
Reply to Omeros
written by Andrew M. Mwenda, December 03, 2012
This problem is not only in Congo but in Uganda as well where even such institutions as media and universities are much better developed than in Congo. Most of what goes on Radio Katwe and UAH are false rumors which acquire the life of facts. Even in America where verification institutions are robust, 40 percent of republicans still think Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. How about DRC where there is hardly any infrastructure of verification of facts? I do not know whether you have read the report against which most activity is taking place. You would be shocked by its simplicity and naivety. it is not worth the paper on which it is written. what is shocking me is that any sane person can take it seriously.
How dare you?
written by Ogoro, December 03, 2012
Andrew, as an African i must disagree with you very strongly when you say that Congo must be left to burn. Do you think that Congo would burn alone? I can assure you that the whole region will burn - Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan. And that is exactly what the 'international community' would prefer to happen. Because if Congo stabilises, it will be a massive boost to African development and sovereignty. So Andrew, the way forward is for Africa do support the Congolese in stabilising their country. Already the ICGLR and AU diplomatic efforts are bearing fruit despite the best efforts of the 'international community' and the UN to frustrate. Africa cannot afford to move backwards!
Why only M23?
written by Ogoro, December 03, 2012
Why doesn't the UN and international media also talk about the situation in Ituri. right now, a militia in Ariwara which is close to the Ugandan border have kicked out the Congolese government and are shooting policemen on sight. The UN and media want to make M23 look bad, yet we've got reports that the army and various rebel groups mistreat the ordinary civilians. M23 is just an excuse for Africa's enemies who masquerade as friends while doing mischief to tarnish Uganda's image. It is time for the AU to take the lead in Congo instead of the UN.
...
written by Gen Adam kifaliso, December 03, 2012
So Andrew, Kagame and Museveni they are the truth , the only truth that the world must listen to , not so dear there are thousands of lives that have been disturbed and lost , the culprits will face justice , Kagame has to come clean , disarm his Tutsi terrorists and disband them before they undo whatever little he has managed to do , it takes only one night to put Rwanda 40 years back , and these guys know how to do it , Let Kagame do the right thing because I know he loves his country unlike the demented hopeless Ugandan dictator
D.R.CONGO
written by ricky-UK, December 03, 2012
UN itself is very weak and they cooperate and eat with rebels in hotels.Congo must be divided for easy ruling.Next time in Mid Dec 2012, the M23 will again capture Goma ,Kaso and proceed and over throw the govt , wait you will see results in Feb 2013.
Very Good Insight but wrong conclusion
written by Tina, December 03, 2012
Andrew ,life is the most precious gift you just don't lose it like that you have made it look like the Congo Issue is so mysterious like the Bermuda Triangle careful what you say. Congo just like any African Country's problem is mainly poverty,segregation from the ruling Govts, and idleness due to lack of jobs every rebel leader therefore uses this excuse to cause unnecessary wars as if that is not enough supper powers fuel the confusion by allowing to sell arms to the rebel groups. one wonders how a rebel leader from a stinking poverty ridden country is given the audience by the supper powers to buy arms just to kill. am of the view that there should be arms embargo to African countries that have unclear war agenda.
...
written by Feddy Imenagitero, December 03, 2012
Wrong title. We cannot let Congo burn! Rwanda burned to the ashes in 1994 while we stood up watching and lives were lost. We cannot allow that anymore. Reason why the region has taken action in a more balanced and logical manner. The UN and big nations are however messing up everything coming up with frequent malicious reports to accuse Rwanda and Uganda. These two countries are however contributing heavily the Congolese problem solving. Leave the ICGLR find solutions and support where possible.
Gen. Adam Kifaliso
written by NKUNDA, December 03, 2012
"Kagame has to come clean, disarm his tutsi terrorist" Not even even the Interahamwe still make such racist statements.
"it takes 1 night to take Rwanda 40 years back" So the Angolans and Zimbabweans used to think too, try it lets not speculate.
Dear "Gen" Kifaliso you have the freedom to express your malicious wishes but we Rwanda's army is RDF composed ethnic hutu, tutsi and yes some ethnic banyankole and baganda, at least i know one Muganda at the rank of a Major just like there are Rwandese in other armies world over and not tutsi terrorists.
Even if you hate milk you have to accept its white.
I disagree
written by Grace, December 03, 2012
Andrew, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander too! If "In many ways, Congo’s crisis shows the dangers of foreign aid to poor countries – etc" as you have stated Andrew, then the best example to give is Uganda! Some few are enjoying Donors' money while the majority are languishing, watching passively. But don't forget that Tanzania played a big part in the down fall of Idi Amin. Just imagine if Tanzania left Uganda to burn...... What about Uganda's contribution in Somalia? Should we really let Somalia burn and expect the best to emerge from the ashes? Andrew please, I would rather we advocate for regional bodies like ECOWAS, SADAC etc to play the leading roles and the UN to come in and support them.
To Lt Adam
written by winnie , December 03, 2012
This article was one of da best the English was flowing like River Nile but the conclusion of this great article was a slip of the keyboard Afande if i was still doing my masters i would have done Masters in international Relations and just copied these brilliant contributions n passed with flying colours its long since i praised the king he looks so healthy i even dreamt of him. For M7 there are only 3 wonders of Uganda M7,River Nile n Lake Victoria did you c how the dignitaries were all over Kla during the Congo Conference CIA,M16 and FBI were falling allover each other coz of M7 brightness
Big up Andrew
written by Frank Rw, December 03, 2012
This is a very well documented and researched piece. How on earth did UN hire this genocide apologist to carry out this infamous report about Rwanda? How do you explain a report that vindicates genocidaires and incriminates the victims? Rwanda is making headway and will prosper against all odds(The reports, Aid freeze, illicit talk, genocidaires,......) the list is long. Much as I don't subscribe to and buy Mwenda's idea of Congo burning, it has a little sense in it. First, DRC (Kabila) has to be brave and bold and say "things are becoming elephant for me, could you neighbors of mine come help me sort out this issu?"
Big up Mwenda
written by Frank Rw, December 03, 2012
At least this has a basis. Otherwise UN, Int'l Community, France, Beligium will just do this aukward thing of delaying and suspending aid to Rwanda and will neither help in puting Kabila's house in order. We very well know who, what, how the Int'l community are, is and works respectively. Let us protect and defend our So called "Tiny RWANDA" against any other evil similar to what befell us in 1994. Long live Rwanda, PK, all Rwandans.
Mr
written by Blackie, December 03, 2012
I have read the article and all the comments. Prior to reading it, I never believed that the UN can be genuine on actions happening in DRR. If anyone had read different series of the "State of Africa - a history of fifty years of independence" and specifically the role the UN played in Congo, will agree with Andrew Mwenda's assertions. I personally entirely agree. Andrew called his friends intellectually lazy when they asked him why he is this assertive. I confess to have enjoyed this article and more of yours on M23
What more can i say, you already said it...
written by Scudz311, December 03, 2012
You said it about libya, said the same about egypt and now see
Dear Nkunda
written by Gen Adam kifaliso, December 03, 2012
I welcome your intervention , but 1st ,Tutsi is not a race and RDF is there to defend Rwanda and not be used for selfish ideas of Kagame and RDF is not Kagame's security firm,just as Rwanda cant stand Hutus across the boarders so is DRC ,cant stand Tutsi armed extremists inside Congo. As for Rwanda's punishment for supporting M23 , we find it difficult to come and and take out facilities in a country that is still recovering from a genocide , its inhuman ,one legitimate target our staff has come up with , is the the home and house of Kagame at the lakeside .we will come for it and let Kagame keep his young family away
...
written by Omeros, December 03, 2012
"Secondly, I do mention that if Rwanda moved one artillery piece across the border and trained and sent troops to fight in DRC, US satellites in space would capture everything. It has happened before. Therefore, the claims of arms supplies to M23 are that fanciful." That is a non sequitur! It does not follow that the allegations are false because they are not substantiated by US satellite picture evidence! Since you mention the US, her actions in this whole affair have been most telling. The US has shown how it judges events by suspending military aid to Rwanda - a diplomatic manoeuvre that it will not have undertaken lightly given the hitherto cordial relations between both countries. Make of that what you will.
...
written by Omeros, December 03, 2012
"[T]hey do nothing to show that they actually had such different sources - unless you want us to believe them because they say so." Do you really mean to suggest that the Group fabricated the report? Carrying out investigations in challenging political environments is fraught with danger. An investigator, or indeed journalist, who prates his sources is likely to imperil his sources. For that reason, it is understandable (or, at least, ought to be) that precautions are taken to protect the identities of persons who genuinely fear for their personal welfare should they be identified as the source of a dangerous allegation.
Dear Andrew
written by Gen Adam kifaliso, December 03, 2012
Congratulations Andrew , you have been rewarded , your brother is now commander of military police , keep preaching the doctrine of the neanderthals of Rwakitura . The world os watching and banging doors in your face
Nonsense
written by Justus Moyo, December 05, 2012
It's sad but ultimately unsurprising that Andrew Mwenda became the mouthpiece of Kigali in Uganda. Unlike most of you, my work takes me to both Kivus several times each year. I rent an apartment in Goma. My sources are deep, and on 'both sides'. Kagame's hand is all over the M23 and. I don't need the UN to tell me that. Apologists like Andrew need to come and see what I live and know, more often.
Circular reasoning
written by Marvin ya Kuku, December 05, 2012
The international community, UN and US even with their "self interests" still represents a better goal than disgruntled soldiers rampaging. European Monarchs of the 1400s lived in different times. We live in the mobile phone era where elections are the norm. M23 should use their claimed civil support to right things if they are genuine rather than military anguish
Over to you Andrew
written by Mulisa Emmanuel, December 05, 2012
We all know that UN Interests in DRC is simply" her vast minerals", whereas for Rwanda, it is only" Security". If from ashes there would be a permanent solution, i would provide fire but i don't think there lies a remedy. The International Community can not allow DRC to burn and later stablize just because their excuses( lame ones) of being there is to restore peace and security however much they have injected the opposite. In otherwords, their daily bread comes from such trubles they create.
Why Mwenda and his benefactors are lashing and venting at the UN
written by Ocheto, December 06, 2012
The UN is an NGO with no standing army to project power. It relies on diplomacy and persuasion to influence nations to act civilly, to avoid the barbarity of the European kind that has caused to brutal world wars and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans hardly two decades ago. And there is nothing inspiring about the dynastic and religious rivalries of petty kingdoms, principalities and city-states of medieval Europe. And the only similarity between Congo and Syria is they are ruled by sons of previous presidents. Beyond that Assad is no weakling like Kabila. Assad is as brutal and strong as dictators come and go. The US is partners with Rwanda so it can't give the UN evidence against Rwanda.
Why Mwenda and his benefactors are lashing and venting at the UN
written by Ocheto, December 06, 2012
Congo is the Afghanistan of Africa. The Belgian colonialists failed to establish any viable, successful, long term governance. And so haven't the ensuing Congolese governments of Kasavubu, Mobutu and now the Kabilas. Why? It’s because the country is diverse geography- and population-wise. To the point: the Banyamulenge of M23 is the latest re-incarnation, disgruntlement with the central authority dates earlier than the Kabila regime. Uganda and Rwanda have intruded into Congo territory more than four times ever since 1996 when they helped depose Mobutu and enthrone Laurent Kabila in his place. They even created the army that is now in place in Kinshasa.
Why Mwenda and his benefactors are lashing and venting at the UN
written by Ocheto, December 06, 2012
The problem is Museveni and Kagame failed to influence events in the Congo as they had hoped. They lost. So now out of frustration they are lashing out at the UN who they see as the immediate stumbling block or spoiler to their territorial, political and economic interests which they easily established in smaller Uganda and Rwanda. Come to think of maybe the UN is doing a good job. Why? Because the non-western members accuse it of being an agency set up by the west to advance its imperialistic interest. Then in the west, especially the US, the UN is accused of being an agency populated by ungrateful, anti-western diplomats from undemocratic countries leading lavish lifestyles paid for by western countries taxpayers.
...
written by Gen Adam kifaliso, December 07, 2012
m7 and Kagame are loosing at rate that they will now go back home and start brutalising their own people , make no mistake the events are just unfolding , Armed Tutsis inside DRC with ambiguous demands will never be tolerated by International communities , Kagame and m7 cant demand from Kabila what they cant give to their own people respectively . Give DRC sometime to organise its forces then we will have very genuine talks ,this time in Kigali of Kagame .Few noble men will ever trust the Ugandan dictator as valuable peace negotiator , he is know to have even lied to his wife
Let Congo burn
written by Emma Tibayungwa, December 07, 2012
I agree entirely with you Andrew. Only then shall we see a new, stable Congo. Those not in favour of the 'burning' must remember that there is a price for everything. How much of Europe 'burnt' during the unification wars? The so called UN panel of 'experts' are working for the interests of their masters-the western world, who never wnt to see stability in Africa. We will either solve our problems in Africa or perish...How I wish all the aid to Africa stopped today! Ofcourse along a much needed ban on our 'leaders' stashing wealth in Western capitals!
...
written by Panafrica, December 08, 2012
I think what u meant is "The best way to save Congo is to burn it." Burn baby burn. The fire is coming from outside, not from inside.
CONGO IS LIKE MONOGAMY
written by Margaret S. Maringa, December 11, 2012
The politics of the Congo is like monogamy -- perfectly logical from the outside (a la Mwenda) but nearly impossible from the inside. Therefore only the late Mobutu Sese Seko has earned the credibility/credentials to make policy anaysis on this subject.

As for the rest of us (Mwenda leading the pack) we are better advised to mind our own banana republics !!!!!!!
Mr
written by kabayekka, December 12, 2012
But then this is what Mobutu was all about for over 30 years because Lumumba was causing lots of trouble and confusion.
Stealing elections and trying to dictate states no longer works especially with modern communication systems. If the editor cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel for this country....well he better pick up something else to write about. Congo is God's country as any other country these days. If those who conspire to mess it up have reached a dead end, it does not mean that the country should go dead.
Mr
written by Jason, December 15, 2012
Don't scapegoat Kagame's Rwanda? The wouldn't be the same Rwanda who advisor's are Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Bill Gates? Yep, the fact is the Rwandan and Ugandan forces are trained and funded by the US! So drop the Red herring that Rwanda and Uganda are scapegoats, you're just confusing people.
...
written by A.Morris, December 24, 2012
Andrew a well known Kagame apologist - i dont expect any better from you. We know the source of the money that started the independent. Your opinions though largely neutral are an insult to the innocent congolese that suffering. No wonder your one the people that contend that DRC be divided so that your other boss Kagame can expand teritory. You may be smart for now but not for long.
...
written by free netflix account and password, May 30, 2013
I think what u meant is "The best way to save Congo is to burn it." Burn baby burn. The fire is coming from outside, not from inside.
...
written by degree in psychology, July 27, 2013
Armored Staff Service providers plus storage containers in complete velocity. In the mean time the particular rebels, equipped mostly along with gentle soldires weaponry, marched by walking plus some upon civilian vehicles in to the city. Just how can a physical military quit an organized city to a gentle troop pressure therefore very easily
...
written by get real instagram followers, September 04, 2013
corruption of the Congolese army. Indeed, Kinshasa had already fired its Chief of Staff of the army accusing him of selling arms to the rebels.Then the residents of Goma lined the streets in large numbers to cheer and welcome the rebels as liberators.
...
written by instagram buy followers, September 06, 2013
Armored Personnel Carriers and tanks at full speed. Meanwhile the rebels, armed largely with light infantry weapons, marched on foot and some on civilian trucks into the town. How can a mechanised army give up a strategic town to a light infantry force so easily?
...
written by instagram follower search, September 06, 2013
Sadly in DRC, political discourse is clouded with wild rumors, a factor that makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. These `experts’ also have interests to advance or protect and therefore come to the job with a predetermined agenda.
...
written by Internet marketing online advertising, September 18, 2013
I would also motivate just about every person to save this web page for any favorite assistance to assist posted the appearance.
...
written by real estate, November 01, 2013
I would love to stop by. But, I think it might have to wait until this summer. I did not know that Serlkay had ever expanded its size. I must say that a succesful family owned business in this day and age is a very refreshing sight! As well as this is a very refreshing site!

Write comment

busy
 
 
 
 

NTV Newsnight

 
COMMENT