MediaGlobal (New York)
Congo-Kinshasa: UN Officials and Civil Society Push for Female Inclusion in Congo Peacebuilding
By Daniel Cohanpour, 14 August 2013On July 25, the United Nations Security Council urged "full and prompt" implementation of previous agreements in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Great Lakes region. At the meeting, Mary Robinson, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Great Lakes Region, discussed the importance of incorporating women into peacebuilding efforts.
With more than 5.4 million dead since the outbreak of war in 1998 and 6.4 million people currently in need of emergency aid, the body condemned attacks by the March 23 Movement (M23) and other armed groups as well as mass rapes in the region.
Robinson also underscored the importance of adopting "zero tolerance of gender-based violence" in the Peace, Security and Cooperation (PSC) Framework, a plan signed on February 24 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia that aims to protect the civilian population and establish peace in the region.
Since the signing of the Framework, increased efforts have been made by civil society groups and UN officials such as Robinson to create an "inclusive peace dialogue" aimed at incorporating women and other minority groups into peacebuilding efforts. With an average of four Congolese women raped every five minutes, women are often the most affected by the conflict yet are the most isolated from discussion.
"Women are critical in this 'inclusive peace dialogue' not only because they are 50 percent of the population but also because they bear the brunt of the conflict. They are active peacebuilders and they are the mediators and facilitators in conflict resolutions efforts," explains Mavic Cabrera-Balleza, International Coordinator for the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP), to MediaGlobal News.
At a July 23 panel discussion titled "Women's Messages for Action in the DRC and the Great Lakes Region," global representatives, including Cabrera-Balleza, aimed to discuss developments in issues facing the DRC and draw attention to the "alarming rates of conflict-related sexual violence" in the region.
The discussion, sponsored by The Permanent Missions of Australia and Uruguay to the UN, as well as non-profits GNWP and Amnesty International, also worked to update the panel on two fundamental updates in female inclusion efforts: the April "Women's Peace Dialogue" in Kinshasa, DRC, as well as the July regional conference on "women, peace, and development" in Bujumbura, Burundi, spearheaded by Special Envoy Robinson and civil society actors.
According to Cabrera-Balleza, while the April Women's Peace Dialogue was proceeding in Kinshasa, a mass rape of 200 women occurred in Eastern Congo's "Province Orientale."
She noted that at the Dialogue, two Congolese ministers conceded that the government had completely lost control of certain portions of the country, like "Province Orientale." Therefore, it is important to support civil society efforts in the region to continue development projects and fill the void.
An inclusive peace dialogue "has not been convened until today because of the fragmentation among various sectors in the country and within each sector, within government agencies and even within civil society," Cabrera-Balleza tells MediaGlobal News.
The "Kinshasa Call to Action," created at the Women's Peace Dialogue, listed demands directed toward the DRC government, African Union member states, and signatories of the PSC framework in regards to female protection.
The July Bujumbura regional conference, on the other hand, created an action plan for the implementation of the PSC Framework. The meeting united more than 100 female civil society leaders and eventually led to the adoption of the plan by Burundi, DRC, and Rwanda.
In addition to developing a "road map" for women's engagement and inclusion in peace initiatives, the July conference established the "Donor's Group," which commits to accessible funding toward women's projects in the Great Lakes region.
After participating at the July Conference, Rosine Sori-Coulibaly, UN Resident Coordinator and Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Burundi, expressed that "it was a very fruitful meeting."
"Women were happy to see that the Special Envoy was taking the contributions of women very seriously. They have come up with concrete actions that can be undertaken in terms of gender based violence," Sori-Coulibaly tells MediaGlobal News.
She continued that it is important to incorporate women in the dialogue because "women are often left out although they are the ones most affected by conflict."
Although recent additions of women into government have occurred, there remains a "wide institutional gap in terms of governments' leadership in adapting laws" and "gender parity in access to public institutions," explains Elsie Effange-Mbella, Senior Gender Advisor at the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO)'s Office of Gender Affairs, to MediaGlobal News.
Women account for about half of the population and 60 percent of the work force but currently, women's representation in government is only 16 percent, added Effange-Mbella.
The government of DRC sent a delegation to the Bujumbura conference, where they helped create a "communication platform" as well as a donor-funding program in order to support female involvement in the implementation of the PSC Framework.
MONUSCO held a debriefing on the Bujumbura conference on August 5, explains Effange-Mbella, where female political leaders were honored and women's groups united to urge more girls to join the army.
Regardless of these attempts, GNWP's Cabrera-Balleza, in a statement to MediaGlobal News, criticized MONUSCO's role in empowering women amidst conflict and claims that more should be done in terms of monitoring.
In terms of "advancing" the women's rights agenda, "MONUSCO has not performed well," Cabrera-Balleza tells MediaGlobal News.
Going forward, Cabrera-Balleza underscores, it is important to monitor what mechanisms MONUSCO will implement that will "guarantee women civil society representation" and that they provide more "concrete support" for female survivors of sexual violence.
This past week Special Envoy Robinson highlighted that in 20 years of "killings, rape, destruction, and displacement," women have "suffered most."
"Women's voices should not only be heard because they are the victims of the war. Their active participation in peace efforts is essential because they are the most effective peace builders," continued Robinson. "I believe they are the region's best hope for building lasting peace."
Rwanda's genocide and the bloody legacy of Anglo-American guilt
Failure to intervene in 1994's horror means the US and UK have refused to rein in President Paul Kagame's excesses in Congo
Former US President Bill Clinton meets Rwanda's President Paul Kagame during a visit to Kigali in 2006. Photograph: Reuters
The United States is allowing one tragic foreign policy failure to compound another.
Eighteen years ago, President Bill Clinton watched passively as the Hutu extremist regime in Rwanda oversaw the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. His administration refused even to utter the word genocide for fear it would oblige the US to intervene.
Clinton wasn't alone. One of the leaders of the Tutsi rebels fighting the genocidal regime told me at the time that during his attempts to persuade the UK government to intervene at the UN, he concluded that British officials regarded the Tutsi victims as little more than ants. The French spent their time trying to get the UN to authorise action that would have propped up the Hutu extremist leadership because they feared the alternative would diminish Paris's influence in central Africa.
The aftermath was a searing experience for Clinton, his Africa gurus and national security advisers – one of whom is now the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who may well replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state – that has continued to shape American policy toward Rwanda. When the fighting ended, the true cost of western inaction was laid bare at the mass graves.
The scale of the killing was mind-boggling. I saw it first hand a church in the small town of Kibuye, where 11,000 were murdered in a single day and 10,000 more were killed the following day in the football stadium.
So it was only natural that, driven by a large dose of guilt, the US, Britain and other western countries – although, tellingly, not France – should throw their backing behind the man who put an end to the genocide and promised to build a new Rwanda: Paul Kagame. Nearly two decades later, though, guilt over the genocide has led the west to stand by while another crime is committed – this time, by Kagame and his forces in neighbouring Congo, where they are directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, some say millions.
Finally, Britain and Europe are waking up to this, following the comprehensive UN investigation charting Rwanda's role in creating and arming a Congolese rebel group, M23, led by a man wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges. But the US still hesitates to tell Kagame that one crime does not justify another.
The Rwandan leader inherited an incredibly difficult situation in 1994. As a Tutsi, he was viewed with suspicion by the Hutu majority, which feared retribution. Kagame had not only to rebuild the country but to bring the guilty to justice, with meagre resources, while promoting reconciliation and ridding his country of officially sanctioned anti-Tutsi hatred. He has done better than might have been expected given the obstacles he faced. Early on, Kagame also had to contend with the Hutu extremist forces, which fled into what was then neighbouring Zaire and continued to threaten Rwanda.
Washington and London were unflinching in their support when, in 1996, Rwanda invaded Zaire to clear the sprawling UN refugee camps that housed the genocidal forces running murderous cross-border raids and threatening to kick start a new genocide. That invasion was justified – but support for Kagame should have been tempered by the actions of his army, which hunted down and massacred Hutus who failed to return to the Rwanda.
Many of them could be regarded as a legitimate enemy. But many were not, including the thousands of women and children slaughtered by the Rwandan military and its proxies. This was also the start of the mass rape by armed groups that has since plagued eastern Congo.
The Rwandan military, with its allies from Uganda and Burundi, then turned to the extremely lucrative plunder of Congo's valuable minerals. That was the point at which the US and Britain should have made a stand. Instead, they turned a blind eye.
It was right that the west's policy should be guided by guilt over the original genocide. It was right to support Rwanda's reconstruction. But that tiny country's future and the stability of central Africa have not been served by Washington and London's years of unquestioning support of Kagame on the grounds that he has a good record on reconstruction and development (in expanding rural healthcare, getting children into school and building programmes to help small-scale family farmers), while all but ignoring what he is doing across Rwanda's western border.
The Americans and the British have more recently been prepared to chide Kagame privately for closing down political space – which means no effective opposition has been allowed to develop to challenge his lengthy rule. Opponents have been jailed on the spurious grounds of spreading genocide ideology, and dissenters have been driven into exile.
But on Rwanda's involvement in Congo, there has been virtual silence.
Who knows how many have died there – some studies put it in the millions – but various forces allied to the Rwandans have been responsible for years of murder, mass rape and forms of ethnic cleansing. This is tragic in its own right. But it is also not good for Rwanda's future because it is contributing to the very instability it says it intervened in Congo to prevent.
After 15 years of invasions, insurgencies and trauma, a generation is emerging in eastern Congo that blames Rwanda for its suffering. And when those Congolese talk about Rwandans in this context, they often mean Tutsis.
Kagame has influential friends. Bill Clinton continues to defend him, describing Kagame as "one of the greatest leaders of our time" and Rwanda as "the best-run nation in Africa". It's hard to imagine that view doesn't have some influence on his wife, the US secretary of state. Similarly, Rwanda policy is also strongly influenced by Susan Rice, who has spoken of her deep regret at her part in American inaction during the genocide.
Kagame also has a strong supporter in Tony Blair, who runs a foundation in Rwanda, which places officials in the president's policy unit, the prime minister's office and the cabinet secretariat. Two years ago, I asked Blair about Kagame. The former British prime minister called the Rwandan president a "visionary leader" and a friend. He said allowances had to be made for the consequences of the genocide and suggested Kagame's economic record outweighed other concerns:
Rwanda has legitimate concerns about who and what is across its border. The remnants of the Hutu extremist forces are still there, twisting a new generation with a genocidal ideology dressed up as a liberation struggle. The Congolese government has not proved able, or particularly willing, to assert its authority over the region. But Kagame, for all his denials about intervention in Congo, is contributing to that instability and the continued suffering of large numbers of Congolese, while jeopardising his own country's future.
Tellingly, this week, a US intelligence portrait of how the world may look in 2030 says that Rwanda is at high risk of becoming a failed state by then. Even Britain – the most stalwart of allies to Kagame from the days when Blair's international development secretary, Clare Short, was a cheerleader for the Rwandan president – has decided to take a step back by withholding aid.
This week, a coalition of campaign groups and thinktanks have written to Barack Obama accusing him of a failed policy over Rwanda and calling on the president to withhold non-humanitarian aid and impose sanctions against Kagame's defence minister and other Rwandan officials with ties to Congo rebels. The letter is signed by 15 organisations, including George Soros's Open Society Foundations, Global Witness, Freedom House and the Africa Faith and Justice Network. Human Rights Watch has made a similar call following its own detailed investigation of crimes against humanity committed by Rwandan-allied forces in Congo.
The Obama administration should heed the call. Kagame's legitimacy comes less from highly-manipulated elections than from the recognition he gets at home and abroad as the man who stopped the genocide. Washington should now tell him that no longer gives him a free hand in Congo.
Eighteen years ago, President Bill Clinton watched passively as the Hutu extremist regime in Rwanda oversaw the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. His administration refused even to utter the word genocide for fear it would oblige the US to intervene.
Clinton wasn't alone. One of the leaders of the Tutsi rebels fighting the genocidal regime told me at the time that during his attempts to persuade the UK government to intervene at the UN, he concluded that British officials regarded the Tutsi victims as little more than ants. The French spent their time trying to get the UN to authorise action that would have propped up the Hutu extremist leadership because they feared the alternative would diminish Paris's influence in central Africa.
The aftermath was a searing experience for Clinton, his Africa gurus and national security advisers – one of whom is now the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who may well replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state – that has continued to shape American policy toward Rwanda. When the fighting ended, the true cost of western inaction was laid bare at the mass graves.
The scale of the killing was mind-boggling. I saw it first hand a church in the small town of Kibuye, where 11,000 were murdered in a single day and 10,000 more were killed the following day in the football stadium.
So it was only natural that, driven by a large dose of guilt, the US, Britain and other western countries – although, tellingly, not France – should throw their backing behind the man who put an end to the genocide and promised to build a new Rwanda: Paul Kagame. Nearly two decades later, though, guilt over the genocide has led the west to stand by while another crime is committed – this time, by Kagame and his forces in neighbouring Congo, where they are directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, some say millions.
Finally, Britain and Europe are waking up to this, following the comprehensive UN investigation charting Rwanda's role in creating and arming a Congolese rebel group, M23, led by a man wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges. But the US still hesitates to tell Kagame that one crime does not justify another.
The Rwandan leader inherited an incredibly difficult situation in 1994. As a Tutsi, he was viewed with suspicion by the Hutu majority, which feared retribution. Kagame had not only to rebuild the country but to bring the guilty to justice, with meagre resources, while promoting reconciliation and ridding his country of officially sanctioned anti-Tutsi hatred. He has done better than might have been expected given the obstacles he faced. Early on, Kagame also had to contend with the Hutu extremist forces, which fled into what was then neighbouring Zaire and continued to threaten Rwanda.
Washington and London were unflinching in their support when, in 1996, Rwanda invaded Zaire to clear the sprawling UN refugee camps that housed the genocidal forces running murderous cross-border raids and threatening to kick start a new genocide. That invasion was justified – but support for Kagame should have been tempered by the actions of his army, which hunted down and massacred Hutus who failed to return to the Rwanda.
Many of them could be regarded as a legitimate enemy. But many were not, including the thousands of women and children slaughtered by the Rwandan military and its proxies. This was also the start of the mass rape by armed groups that has since plagued eastern Congo.
The Rwandan military, with its allies from Uganda and Burundi, then turned to the extremely lucrative plunder of Congo's valuable minerals. That was the point at which the US and Britain should have made a stand. Instead, they turned a blind eye.
It was right that the west's policy should be guided by guilt over the original genocide. It was right to support Rwanda's reconstruction. But that tiny country's future and the stability of central Africa have not been served by Washington and London's years of unquestioning support of Kagame on the grounds that he has a good record on reconstruction and development (in expanding rural healthcare, getting children into school and building programmes to help small-scale family farmers), while all but ignoring what he is doing across Rwanda's western border.
The Americans and the British have more recently been prepared to chide Kagame privately for closing down political space – which means no effective opposition has been allowed to develop to challenge his lengthy rule. Opponents have been jailed on the spurious grounds of spreading genocide ideology, and dissenters have been driven into exile.
But on Rwanda's involvement in Congo, there has been virtual silence.
Who knows how many have died there – some studies put it in the millions – but various forces allied to the Rwandans have been responsible for years of murder, mass rape and forms of ethnic cleansing. This is tragic in its own right. But it is also not good for Rwanda's future because it is contributing to the very instability it says it intervened in Congo to prevent.
After 15 years of invasions, insurgencies and trauma, a generation is emerging in eastern Congo that blames Rwanda for its suffering. And when those Congolese talk about Rwandans in this context, they often mean Tutsis.
Kagame has influential friends. Bill Clinton continues to defend him, describing Kagame as "one of the greatest leaders of our time" and Rwanda as "the best-run nation in Africa". It's hard to imagine that view doesn't have some influence on his wife, the US secretary of state. Similarly, Rwanda policy is also strongly influenced by Susan Rice, who has spoken of her deep regret at her part in American inaction during the genocide.
Kagame also has a strong supporter in Tony Blair, who runs a foundation in Rwanda, which places officials in the president's policy unit, the prime minister's office and the cabinet secretariat. Two years ago, I asked Blair about Kagame. The former British prime minister called the Rwandan president a "visionary leader" and a friend. He said allowances had to be made for the consequences of the genocide and suggested Kagame's economic record outweighed other concerns:
"I'm a believer in and a supporter of Paul Kagame. I don't ignore all those criticisms, having said that. But I do think you've got to recognise that Rwanda is an immensely special case because of the genocide. Secondly, you can't argue with the fact that Rwanda has gone on a remarkable path of development. Every time I visit Kigali and the surrounding areas you can just see the changes being made in the country."But a sound economic policy hardly justifies the years of abuses in Congo.
Rwanda has legitimate concerns about who and what is across its border. The remnants of the Hutu extremist forces are still there, twisting a new generation with a genocidal ideology dressed up as a liberation struggle. The Congolese government has not proved able, or particularly willing, to assert its authority over the region. But Kagame, for all his denials about intervention in Congo, is contributing to that instability and the continued suffering of large numbers of Congolese, while jeopardising his own country's future.
Tellingly, this week, a US intelligence portrait of how the world may look in 2030 says that Rwanda is at high risk of becoming a failed state by then. Even Britain – the most stalwart of allies to Kagame from the days when Blair's international development secretary, Clare Short, was a cheerleader for the Rwandan president – has decided to take a step back by withholding aid.
This week, a coalition of campaign groups and thinktanks have written to Barack Obama accusing him of a failed policy over Rwanda and calling on the president to withhold non-humanitarian aid and impose sanctions against Kagame's defence minister and other Rwandan officials with ties to Congo rebels. The letter is signed by 15 organisations, including George Soros's Open Society Foundations, Global Witness, Freedom House and the Africa Faith and Justice Network. Human Rights Watch has made a similar call following its own detailed investigation of crimes against humanity committed by Rwandan-allied forces in Congo.
The Obama administration should heed the call. Kagame's legitimacy comes less from highly-manipulated elections than from the recognition he gets at home and abroad as the man who stopped the genocide. Washington should now tell him that no longer gives him a free hand in Congo.
World news
- Rwanda ·
- Democratic Republic of the Congo ·
- Bill Clinton ·
- United States ·
- Hillary Clinton ·
- Susan Rice ·
- US foreign policy ·
- France ·
- United Nations
Politics
Law
More on this story
Obama urges Rwandan president to stop support for M23 rebels in Congo
US president tells Paul Kagame that backing rebel group in eastern Congo is 'inconsistent with desire for stability and peace'
