CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: REBELS CLOSING IN ON POWER

Happy New Year to all the readers of the weblog. It was a really successful 2012 and we hope 2013 continues in the same vein. Having taken a 3-week break at the end of 2012, 1worldinternational returns with a piece on the troubled Central African Republic whose future is precociously balanced on a precipice.

 

 

Just when one thought that the state of affairs in the West and Central parts of Africa couldn’t deteriorate any further, what with the turmoil in Mali, Nigeria and the Congo, the Central African Republic succumbed to the disease which its aforementioned neighbours have been diagnosed with.

Background

By way of a brief background to recent events, the Seleka rebel group launched its offensive against the government of President Francois Bozize who has been in power since 2003. His subsequent victories in two further elections held since then, namely in 2005 and 2011 have done nothing to boost his democratic credentials as these have unsurprisingly been mired in and discredited by claims of electoral malpractice. The rebels’ discontent lies in Bozize’s alleged mismanagement of the country’s affairs and reneging on promises made to former rebels to provide financial assistance and jobs for them. The Seleka alliance is said to be made up of a collection of several rebel groups who have seemingly heeded the message contained in the mantra: “together we stand, divided we fall”.

 

Attempts at Resolving the Conflict

Africa’s latest civil war has luckily failed to escape the attention of the international community - unlike that of the Congo and Sudan where there has been a significant lack of political will to bring the conflicts to an end - with the Africa and European Unions, France and the United States nudging the warring parties to settle their grievances through dialogue rather than bullets. A further round of talks is scheduled for 10^th January with Libreville, the capital city of Gabon, providing the venue for the latest attempt at a peaceful resolution.

Unfortunately not much hope is being held out for a resolution of the conflict next week not least because the rebels are only a few miles outside of the country’s capital city of Bangui and appear to have victory within striking distance. In addition, the rebels have claimed that Bozize is prone to renege on promises and as a result, there are no guarantees that he will honour his own side of any agreement, if any is arrived at, between both sides at next week’s talks. The rebels are also almost certainly expected to insist on the resignation of President Bozize as a pre-condition for engaging fervently in the talks and at the time of writing, Bozize’s camp has flat out ruled out the rebel’s demands. President Bozize, in an interview with the Reuters news agency, via his spokesman, Cyriac Gonda stated: “The question of President Bozize leaving…will be rejected systematically if it is proposed.”

 

Sound-off

The rebels’ successes have occurred in spite of the military assistance provided by some of the country’s neighbours such as Cameroon, Gabon and Chad. This week’s plea, presumably aimed at the rebels from Bozize, urged the rebels to allow him to complete his mandate which is set to terminate in three years time. Bozize also promised that he would not participate in the country’s next presidential elections scheduled for 2016.

The significance of next week’s talks cannot be overstated due to the involvement of the country’s aforementioned neighbours as one can easily foresee a Congo-like scenario where these neighbours in tandem launch an offensive against the victorious rebels thus plunging the region into further instability. President Idriss Deby and the Republic of Chad in particular, with the most to lose from the rebel’s victory owing to their long-term support for Bozize, will no doubt be at the forefront of any such moves to forcibly remove the rebels from their seat of power. Commonsense would suggest that the rebels should allow Bozize to finish his term but if Bozize’s previous form is taken into account, i.e. reneging on promises, one can understand why the rebels fail to believe that Bozize’s word is bond.

THE CONGO: ARE SOME WARS LESS IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS?

This week's post comes from the writer and poet, Uche Ndaji who has produced a polemic on the fortunes, or rather misfortunes, of one of Africa's largest countries, DRC Congo. The piece adopts a multi-faceted approach in its analysis of the Congo with the author avoiding the oft-repeated patronizing tone adopted by many researchers in their attempts to channel or convey the Congo experience to the rest of the world. The piece is worth publication in the very best of the global news outlets across the world and 1worldinternational is certainly privileged to serve as the mouthpiece of this fantastic writer.


When the M23 rebel group audaciously marched into Goma on 20 November a feeling of dread emerged, an oxymoronic combination of expectation and surprise. As MONUSCO, the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the DR Congo shockingly looked on, the M23 captured Goma with little more than agonising stares to contend with.

For the unfortunate population in eastern Congo, a sentiment of déjà vu perseveres: a feeling that a war that never ends begins once more in a conflict that has claimed 5 million lives. Where were the diplomats, the envoys and regional leaders spinning for one side or the other? Did the world leaders lose the memo? If colonial discord is put to one side for the purpose of addressing the country’s recent past, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been in turmoil since independence in 1960.

In recent times, the Congolese population have not known peace because the mineral wealth which it is blessed with including: gold, tantalum, tin, but to name a few has turned into an encumbrance. Decades of political coups d’état and unstable leadership steadily guided a country with abundant natural wealth into the hands of rapacious states.

In a letter presented on November 15 to the Security Council by the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, light is shed on the carefully coordinated proxy war financed by Rwanda and factions of the Ugandan government. The report emphasises the influence of the Rwandese and Ugandan governments on the conflict through arms and personnel provision. Furthermore, the report stresses the fact that M23 is the only rebel group in eastern Congo that wears Rwandan armed forces uniforms. This deals a big blow to Rwandan president Paul Kagame’s unrelenting denials of his government’s support and connection to the cause of the uprising or the M23 rebel group.

Simmering alongside allegations of Rwanda’s support for M23 are ethnic divisions which stem from Rwanda’s genocidal past and DR Congo’s safeguarding of some of the Hutu administration who devised the 1994 massacre that killed as many as 1 million people according to the United Nations Outreach Programme. In a bid to protect the Rwandan Tutsi minority and its expatriate population within Congo from attacks by Hutu militiamen operating from its border with eastern Congo, the Rwandan government has used the pretext of protecting its citizens to pillage Congo DR’s natural resources.

On one hand, criticising the international community for lack of action against a conflict that has ravaged the lives of millions seems unwarranted, perhaps unfair. On the other hand, the least the UN can do is to take action against systematic human rights abuses for the sake of the 5 million killed; 1.7 million internally displaced people and the rape victims, attacked at the rate of 48 every hour according to the American Journal of Public Health.

A recurring concern remains that warlords capture and retain territory with impunity, executing civilians, looting, raping and forcibly conscripting child soldiers. A prime example of such an aggressor is the M23 leader Bosco Ntaganda, wanted for trial by the International Criminal Court on a warrant issued in 2006 for conscripting, coordinating the recruitment and training of children under 15, as former Deputy Chief of General Staff for Military Operations for the Forces Patriotiques pour la libération du Congo (FPLC).

In light of such atrocities, there is an unpleasant impression propagated by the international community that some wars are more important than others. That if your war does not involve terrorism, extremism or a direct threat to the exportation of democracy to the developing world then it must be a trivial conflict to be tucked away into the pile of inconsequential scuffles that just happen. In such cases few resolutions are made except for squabbling between Security Council members, who doubt the motives of intervention even when civilians are trapped in the savageries of warfare: the conflict in Syria comes to mind.

Consider if the fanfare surrounding the recent Israel-Gaza hostilities had been applied to the DR Congo conflict, much progress would have been made bearing in mind that it is in poor taste to compare wars. In the same breath, restrained indifference encourages belligerent forces to continue brutalising villages. The recent UN report also called attention to the slaughter of hundreds of civilians in North Kivu under the instructions of M23, with at least 800 houses burnt down since May 2012.

Although the UN peacekeeping mission MONUSCO costs an estimated $1 billion a year, its function is yet to be realised. Established in 1999, the mission has done little to prevent widespread killings and rapes in the eastern region of Congo. The purpose of the peacekeeping mission was further called into question when UN personnel stood and watched as rebels took the city of Goma. The frequency of such incursions tells the dismal story of a failed mission but more importantly the innocent Congolese people caught in the middle of MONUSCO’s spineless assignment, leaving civilians to protect themselves.

The $1 billion spent on a protective force that appears futile can be used to prop up the projects of rape victims who assist other victims by providing shelter, medical and psychological care.

Meanwhile, the rebels are aware that the UN mission has run its course, the daring march into Goma emphasises this point and the exasperation of the angry crowd that clapped for the rebels and hurled stones at UN troops is an indication of accepted apathy. The international community must do something to restore confidence, it should either extend MONUSCO’s mandate or create a different structure, active in engaging when rebels show aggression towards civilians.

Also, it is essential to initiate dialogue between the governments of Rwanda, Uganda and DR Congo. These governments are culpable on some level of arming rebel groups. Perhaps Rwandan and Ugandan governments realise that if the war rages on in Congo they can appropriate more minerals and assure that the status quo of their regimes remain. However, the unpredictability of constant change in leadership and blocs in the respective rebel groups operating in DR Congo shows that nothing is guaranteed.

Despite the announcement on 30 November by International Development Secretary Justine Greening that £21m worth of aid to Rwanda would be withdrawn, it remains to be seen how responsive the Rwandan government and their Ugandan counterparts can be in ensuring that peace finally reigns in DR Congo.

SIERRA LEONE: SIERRA LEONANS CHOOSE THE BALLOT OVER THE BULLET

Unsurprisingly the pattern of events which have unfolded since the outcome of national elections in Sierra Leone became known have followed a rather rancorous and familiar path. Last week’s re-election of President Ernest Bai Koroma has drawn the ire of leading figures from the country’s main opposition party who claim that the elections were flawed and rigged in favour of the incumbent. Koroma, who campaigned on the joint headers of fighting corruption and attracting investment to the country, will now serve a second term in office following his 2007 victory.

Koroma’s All People’s Congress were said to have garnered 58.7 percent of the popular vote thereby surpassing the 55 percent threshold required to claim a first round victory. The opposition party’s Julius Maada Bio of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) questioned the validity of elections which international observers have acknowledged as being free and fair. Bio averred that the credibility of the results had been undermined by “systemic and widespread irregularities, malpractices and injustices”.

The SLPP and Bio will meet difficulties in attempting to convince anyone but their own supporters that the elections were marred by irregularities. For one, international observers including a European Union observer mission stationed in the country during the elections have had no reasons, as far as is known, to question the polls’ credibility. The EU’s presence was supplemented by observer missions from the Commonwealth, the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU). Further, a recount of a cross-section of the votes cast and conducted by the country’s electoral commission following the aforementioned claims of voter irregularity revealed that only a handful of the sample had been ‘contaminated’ and that the numbers of ‘contaminated’ votes were insufficient in number and scale to necessitate the annulment of the election results.

If the results of this third democratic election stand, it would signal immense progress since the end of the country’s 11-year civil war between 1991 and 2002. That unsavoury period of the country’s existence saw Sierra Leone serve as venue against the background of the commission of grave breaches of human rights and war crimes. The conflict was famous for the use of ‘blood diamonds’ by rebel soldiers to acquire ammunition, the deplorable use of child soldiers and the scores of innocent civilians now living with amputated limbs, amputation being the rebel fighters’ favoured means of intimidation and punishment. Hopes however abound that the recent elections will serve as the impetus which the country needs in order to realise the potential which the wealth of natural resources it possesses could only fuel or propel. Encouragingly early indications reveal a country so haunted by its past that its people, regardless of ethnic or political affiliation, are intent on steering its path far away from the history it attempts to dissociate therefrom.

GUATEMALA: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS BROUGHT TO JUSTICE A DECADE AFTER CIVIL WAR

A few months ago, 1worldinternational published a feature on the Argentinean Generals who had been made to face justice decades after their involvement in crimes against humanity committed during the darkest period of the country’s history. The same fate has befallen military officers in Guatemala who presided over alleged crimes against humanity and genocide committed mainly against the country’s indigenous Mayan populace.

The UN Truth Commission set up in the aftermath of the country’s 36-year civil war which lasted from 1960 to 1996 estimates that 200,000 people were killed and/or are still missing since the civil war. The country with a population of 13 million and second only to El Salvador as Central America’s most populated country comprises mainly of indigenous Mayan Indians.

During the ‘dark period’, the country’s army was engaged in a war against left-wing guerrillas who comprised mainly of individuals of Mayan origin. As a result, the government endorsed death squads and paramilitaries akin to the Sudanese government’s use of the Janjaweed in Darfur in its attempts to squash the guerrillas and suspected collaborators. In fact the UN backed Commission for Historical Classification also surmised that Guatemalan security forces were behind 93% of all human rights atrocities which took place in that period and that 83% of the victims of the crimes were Mayans.

The worst of the human rights violations including rape, wanton executions and massacres of whole villages are said to have occurred during the rule of Generals Efrain Rios Montt and Oscar Meja Victores between 1970 and 1983. Survivors of the civil war welcomed last week’s conviction of five right-wing paramilitaries (Eusebio Grace, Julian & Maria Acoj, Santos Rosales, Lucas Tecu) and their subsequent sentencing to a total of 7,710 years in jail for their role in a 1982 massacre in the village of Plaza de Sanchez. The sentence is largely symbolic as the maximum term served under Guatemalan law is 50 years. Four of those individuals were members of a government-sponsored militia and the fifth was a former army intelligence officer.

These latest convictions follow the earlier conviction of a former Guatemalan soldier, Pedro Pimentel Rios, who was sentenced to 6,060 years in prison for his role in the massacre of 201 people in the village of Dos Erres during the brutal 36-year civil conflict. Amnesty International, for long a solitary voice in advocating the bringing to justice of the perpetrators of the mass crimes has welcomed the latest convictions. Sebastian Elgueta, Amnesty International’s Central America Researcher, said: “slowly but surely, justice is beginning to prevail for these horrendous crimes that have hung over Guatemalan society for three decades.” He continued “each new verdict erodes the long entrenched impunity in the country and the authorities must continue to ensure that the thousands of victims and their relatives are given access to justice and full reparation as well as the truth about what happened.”

General Efrain Rios Montt for his own part in the civil war faces charges of genocide and crimes against humanity following the Guatemalan court’s recent revocation of an amnesty granted to Montt by his successor. General Victores on the other hand was ruled unfit to answer to charges of genocide as a result of a stroke suffered recently. Despotic governments around the world will do well to monitor the developments in Guatemala not least because of the message the recent convictions send to the world, that being that as was also the case in Argentina, justice delayed is not justice denied.

GLOBAL PERSONALITY OF THE WEEK

Dr Atar Adaha Evans is 1worldinternational’s global personality of the week for his work in one of the most tempestuous regions of the world.

The border region between Sudan and South Sudan has long been the scene of conflict for as long as one can recall. Global affairs observers will note that the Sudan is a country which has been embroiled in conflict since 1956 with an estimated 2m people losing their lives as a result in that time.

Aid agencies have not been immune to bombing and shelling which has seen many of the agencies leave the country. Dr Evans has however stayed behind and equipped with a solitary ambulance and also under the hail of enemy fire, attended the dying and injured caught up in the conflict.

Understandably, his family have vociferously objected to his vocation due to the dangers he faces on a daily basis. Asked by the BBC who he specifically treats on the frontline, Dr Evans responded “anyone who is desperate…civilians, rebels, troops, prisoners of war. During Sudan’s last war I even treated government army officers. They continue to write me”.

1worldinternational salutes Dr Evans as one of the few remaining modern day heroes.

WORLD LOOKS ON AS IVORY COAST TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION IS LAUNCHED

A South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been established in the Ivory Coast in the wake of the country’s civil war. The Commission, launched by President Alassane Ouattara in the last month, is tasked with healing the wounds sustained by the country as a result of the violence which followed last year’s disputed elections. The stand-off between the supporters of the incumbent at the time, Laurent Gbagbo, and his successor, President Ouattara, only ended with United Nations (UN) authorised strikes on the strongholds of the former.

Prior to 1999’s coup d’etat which brought the deposed President Gbagbo to power, the country, which is also the leading producer of cocoa in the world, was one of Africa’s most politically stable countries. The coup thereafter ushered in a period of political instability which culminated in the deadly violence which saw the death of about 3,000 people and the displacement of around 500,000 people in a 5-momth period between December 2010 and April 2011, according to observers and human rights organisations.

The newly sworn in Truth, Reconciliation and Dialogue Commission will consist of 11 members inclusive of civil, political and religious leaders. It was also revealed that Didier Drogba, the country’s most famous sportsman, will sit on the Commission as a representative of Ivory Coast citizens residing outside the country. It is unknown as yet, whether an amnesty, akin to that offered to perpetrators of human rights abuses offering full disclosure before South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, will be given or issued to perpetrators of the violence in the Ivory Coast. President Ouattara opines that the institution of the Commission is essential to the reconstruction of the country in the aftermath of the war. To this effect, President Ouattara states: “the truth means that we need to express ourselves with an open heart, and have the courage to tackle difficult questions such as retaliation as well as the violence perpetrated on our population”.

Whether the work of the Commission will be able to erase the scars left by the civil war remains to be seen. The concept of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission has existed for many years in the form assembled in post-apartheid South Africa or in a derivative format such as Argentina’s National Commission for Forced Disappearances. It is not without its detractors, several of whom assert that the amnesty a times offered to perpetrators of human rights violations in return for a full and frank confession and account of crimes partaken in prevents criminals and murderers from being brought to justice. Additionally, as confessors may become immune from civil or criminal prosecution, it is impossible to ascertain whether the confessors are indeed providing a full account of their criminal actions where confessions are not made under oath. There are also concerns that the survivors are forced to relive the horrors and violence visited upon them through the accounts of the perpetrators.

However, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have championed a new reconciliatory approach in dealing with human rights violations following periods of civil unrest, political impasse or civil wars as opposed to the more adversarial civil or criminal prosecutions. There is also no doubt that the account provided by perpetrators provides an opportunity to ascertain, analyse and understand the reasoning behind their actions in order to prevent their recurrence in the future. Further and contrary to the views of its critics, the grant of amnesties, as was the case in South Africa, was only sanctioned where the Commission deemed that the crimes were “politically motivated, proportionate, and where full disclosure was given by the person seeking the amnesty”.

It should be noted that UN observers and human rights organisations at the time of the conflict reported that both sides were responsible for carrying out serious human rights abuses; these abuses included rape, torture and summary executions. The fact that only the supporters of the former President, Laurent Gbagbo, have been charged with crimes carried out during the crisis has not escaped the attention of observers. If the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to be successful, it is important that it is not seen to be an avenue which merely enables the execution of ‘victor’s justice’. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Chairman of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission concurs in averring: “the perception that ‘victor’s justice’ is being applied would greatly undermine the reconciliation process.” Only the bipartisan indictment of soldiers, mercenaries and fighters from both sides and a full and frank disclosure provided by all those involved will lend any sort of credibility to the Commission and set the country on the road back to the recovery it so dearly craves.