The UN Intervention Brigade

On 28 March, 2013, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 2098, which authorized the creation of an 'offensive intervention brigade' for the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC is currently home to MONUSCO, the world's largest and most expensive peacekeeping operation. MONUSCO has faced its fair share of criticisms, namely failing to protect civilians, suffering language barriers with the local population, and the lack of a mandate that allowed for engaging with the various rebel movements that plague the area. However, the new brigade is authorized to seek out, engage, and destroy the many non-state actors that bring chaos to the region. Some of the groups, such as the notorious FDLR, the same rebels that perpetrated the Rwandan genocide, have been terrorizing the Kivus for almost 20 years. Others, such as the M23, are revamps of older movements, but still apt to cause massive violence and displacement seemingly whenever they so chose.

The rebel movements, ranging from non-Congolese actors such as the FDLR, various Mai-Mai organizations, the Raia Mutomboki , and the former CNDP now M23, have operated in the eastern region with impunity for far too long. Scholars, such as Laura Seay, have pointed out that this brigade is well needed, if about a decade too late in coming together. The UN, the Congolese government, and the international community have offered carrot after carrot to bring the rebels to negotiations. The instances of negotiations very rarely proved successful, with some parties refusing to participate at all. Several peaceful strategies have been offered and failed. The people of the east deserve peace, and the government in Kinshasa, as well as the national army (FARDC) have proved that they are unable and lack the legitimacy to provide security. For the UN to decide to send in an offensive force to effectively drive the hostile parties out of the forests is an excellent move. Many have questioned the legitimacy of sending 'peacekeepers' to wage 'acts of war'. In the instance of the DRC, no other option has worked, and this is the best chance to bring much needed stability to the region.

The first contingent of troops arrived in Goma on May 10. The Tanzanians, under the command of General James Mwakibolwa, are the first steps to bringing a security presence to the region. The rebel groups in the area are already worried, judging by the Twitter account of M23. While the first troops of the brigade are just arriving, many are looking forward to the future and the potential success of the operation. If it works, it will allow a region that has been the site of almost non-stop violence for 20 years to finally have peace, and all of the opportunities that come along with it.

What's AFRICOM to do?

If you weren't paying attention to Africa during the Bush administration you might have missed the creation of United States Africa Command, or AFRICOM. Basically, the Bush administration took three separate 'Africa' military departments (EUCOM for West Africa, CENTCOM for East Africa, PACOM for Indian Ocean waters and islands off the east coast of Africa) and combined them into one. Why? Well, originally, AFRICOM was branded as a new partnership between African states and the US as a force for 'good'. You know, we'll train the rag tag armies of African countries and make them in to real forces, and we'll dig some wells, and build some clinics, and be sure to take lots of pictures so that everyone across Africa and around the world sees what 'good' the US is doing with its military.

Lately, though, with the rise of Islamic terrorism on the continent, congressmen and senators have been looking to AFRICOM for answers and action. On Thursday, while most wonks and policy addicts were watching the debacle that was the Hagel hearing, Army Gen. David Rodriguez was also undergoing a hearing. Rodriguez was nominated last year to lead AFRICOM. Just a few months ago no one, outside of those who follow Africa, really cared. Now, since Mali, Libya, and the influence of al-Qaeda, Congress seems to have decided to start to pay attention. Even senators that would fail a map quiz locating African countries (looking at you, Inhofe) want MORE troops for AFRICOM, MORE money, and MORE results.  See, according to Rodriguez, there are four major threats on the African continent at the moment:al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; al Shabaab in Somalia; Boko Haram in Nigeria; and Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army.  Congress feels that's bad for the US. Bad for the world. Because of terrorism. So we should do something.

Yet, Obama doesn't want the US to expand its military engagements in Africa. But now Congress does.

It will be interesting to see what use AFRICOM can be in combating the spread of terrorism throughout North Africa and in the Sahel. The point of the organization was to strengthen military ties between the US and African states, as well as the whole 'force of good'. For AFRICOM to function properly, it can't be seen as the US attempting to gain a military foothold on the continent. It has to be a willing, mutually beneficial relationship. That's hard to accomplish, due to the long history of western domination of Africa. Obama has almost a 'hands off' approach to Africa and its myriad issues; he let France deal with Mali, has allowed the UNSC to handle the tragedy of the continuing war in the DRC, and, in truth, has barely mentioned the continent at all (except Mali in the State of the Union, and that was only in the context of the larger 'war on terror'.)

All bets are that this will be another area of tension between the White House and Congress. And that is not good for anyone.

On Mali and France.

First, if you haven't read Laura Seay's piece in Foreign Policy on Mali, you should. She gives a brilliant critique of the media coverage on Mali, and also some background on what is going on. So, what is happening in Mali? In short, it has a lot to do with a weak state and a tense domestic situation that spiraled out of control, now involving a France and ECOWAS, with several other African states promising and sending military support.

For almost a year, Mali was of no real concern to the international community- the coup and then takeover of half the country by rebels and militants was on the back burner of international issues. The United Nations Security Council passed a vague, open ended resolution back in December, but outside of that there was little haste to act.

Then France stepped in, and began what has amounted to a successful campaign against the militants in Mali. With over 3,000 troops on the ground, France is waging a real war, and winning. Yet, you can't have European intervention in a former colony without the conspiracy theories abounding, and almost as soon as the bombs began to fall, the op-ed pieces about 'France attempting to recolonize Mali' began to appear. This however, is far from the reason why France got involved. Hollande said it was due to 'one sovereign state asking for the help of another.' Hollande has made it clear that France will withdraw once the battles are done (March at the earliest). There is no reason to think otherwise. The bulk of the military engagement and peacekeeping will be done by an UN-backed African military force (AFISMA), not France. France is not after resources, not after colonies. It is simply waging its own fight against Islamic militants and doing a bang up job. While France mops up the al-Qaeda backed groups, the government of Mali attempts to set up peace talks with the MNLA to bring long term stability to the north.

So where does Mali fit in the 'War on Terror?' As Seay so brilliantly points out, Mali is not going to be a long, protracted engagement by France. It will not be an occupation. What Mali will be, and currently is, is an attempt by states working together to turn the tide of extremism, and roll back the influx of al-Qaeda backed movements in Mali.

Burundi’s 2015 General Election: Fear or Hope?

As far as Central Africa goes, Burundi is overlooked. Landlocked between the DRC, Rwanda, and Tanzania, Burundi's history is one of military government, ethnic cleansing, and civil war. Yet this small state is intimately tied to its neighbors. It was violence in Burundi during the 1970s that set the paranoia of the Habyarimana regime in Rwanda, laying the framework for genocide. Two Burundian presidents died within a year of each other in 1993-1994, and then all hell broke loose. Burundi emerged from a long civil war, holding elections in 2005 that set the CNDD in to legitimacy and democratic government, but the election cycle in 2010 broke down with opposition parties boycotting the general election after early results seemed to be rigged in the favor of the CNDD. Burundi is set to hold elections again in 2015. The CNDD faces new and old rebel groups and there is an uneasy peace holding the country at the moment. Which brings me to today's post- a guest post explaining the current situation of democracy in Burundi.

Stany Nzobonimpa is currently working towards a degree in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution in Kenya. He also runs the Association AJC Burundi, a political organization for the youth of Burundi. This is his opinion on the future of democracy in his country of Burundi. He will be writing frequently on working towards peace and solutions for the heart of Africa.

 

Burundi’s 2015 General Election: Fear or Hope?

Now 3 years, the CNDD FDD’s second term is flowing...and with, I must say, little proof that the Nyangoma found party is well positioned and trustful enough to win the coming election.

It was in January 2005 that the former rebels registered CNDD FDD (Burundi’s ruling party) as a political party creating hope for the future of the country. Many analysts saw the coming of a new ruling system mainly controlled by the Hutu, the major ethnic group who had been denied power since independence as a new era, an open door to democracy and good governance. However, that hope could not last longer. Only a few years after their emerging to power, the party was accused by some of its members of ‘changing and migrating’ in terms of ideology, accusations which gave way for the CNDD FDD to lose many of its committed and historical officials. The situation became even worse when the outcomes of the 2010 general election were contested by all of the opposition parties whose leaders decided to withdraw their candidates from continuing with the electoral process.

On December 4, 2012 in the famous ‘Palace’ of Kigobe, the news surprised almost every Burundian: the CENI team (National Independent Electoral Commission), chaired by the same individuals of 2010, was voted for by the majority in parliament to head the new commission for 2015 leaving anger in the midst of the opposing parties and doubt in independent observers. Those individuals were accused by boycotters in 2010 of being ‘used’ by the ruling CNDD FDD and ADC Ikibiri (Coalition of opposing parties) blamed the chairman, Ambassador P. Claver Ndayicariye and his team for the ‘trucked’ election.

Now that almost ‘every’ hope is gone for a fair election, what will 2015 bring us? Wait and see. The general election is coming when majority of the leaders who ‘think things should be done differently’ are living in exile, having been forced to do so by fear of death in 2011. The era approaches with war memorandum and attacks in some provinces. In the year 2011, according to a Human Rights Watch Report (2012), violence increased and, 3 years after election, the political situation has failed to stabilize. Impunity for killing and other human rights violation has been an obstacle to peace and stability in the country. With the ruling party’s youth wing (Imbonerakure) and the intelligence services (SNR) largely accused in many reports of being violence promoters, the future for the political stability of the country seems to disappear by the ‘horizons’.

In a country where more than 400 people were killed in one year (2011) because of their political opinions (Anonymous Report 2011), concerned should be careful and prepare an open, fair, democratic and accepted election to prevent violence in the coming 2015 Burundi general election. I think that it is NOW that constructive talks between ALL parties should start to promote a culture of peace and nonviolence. People should understand that unless there is TRUE democracy and good governance, respect of individuals’ rights and understanding between blocks, the reconciliation process will NEVER take roots in that country known as the heart of Africa.