Conflict is reaching a new peak point in the eastern DRC

Africa Canada provides you with an accessible news update containing the most essential information. If you are interested in knowing more about this, we recommend some articles by the New York Times and the BBC towards the end. Other source recommendations are welcome – use the commentary section for that.

The UN peace-keeping forces Monusco have been supporting the Congelese government forces in protecting the city Goma from the M23 rebels (also known as Congolese Revolutionary Army).

Goma lies in the  North Kivu province in the resource rich eastern DRC and is by far the biggest city in that area. It is also in close proximity to the borders with Uganda and Rwanda. 400 000 people are said to live in Goma, however, about 60 000 of them have fled the city in these last five days since the M23 has been approaching.

Sunday night the rebels stated an ultimatum to the government forces – they were meant to leave the city within 24 hours. However, the Congolese government has promised not to give Goma up and did not meet the ultimatum.

Fights continued on Monday. Several sources state that the rebels managed to enter some parts of the city. Bomb explosions are heard near the airport. Details considering the advancement of the M23 and death tolls have not been confirmed.

The UN condemned the rebel advance. A citizen of Goma said in an interview with BBC that he felt abandoned by the UN forces, whose effectiveness has been doubted for a while in the region.

A UN panel report that leaked to Reuters accuses the Ugandan and Rwandan government of supplying the rebels with arms. It has been noted that the M23 forces are very well-equipped. Both governments have denied these allegations.

On Tuesday, the rebel forces entered Goma. Some fear that this might kindle a new war. The last one had caused about 5 million deaths.

 

This is a brief starting point for your research about this conflict.

This is the most recent BBC article.

Here are two New York Times articles about the recent events: 1 and 2.

The Lubanga Trial: A Historic Landmark for the International Criminal Court

At the height of Konymania last month, the International Criminal Court (ICC), war  criminals and child soldiers become uncharacteristic talkings points. On March 14, the Netherlands-based court made headlines in its own right when it passed a landmark verdict – its very first – by convicting the Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. He was found guilty on three counts for the abduction of children in the eastern Ituri region in 2002-03, of forcing them to serve as soldiers, and of using them during the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s from 1998- 2003.

Lubanga served as the alleged head of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UCP) and its former military wing, the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo, during the Second Congolese war. The ICC decision was unanimous, and now Lubanga faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The Lubanga verdict is exemplary because it was the first one passed by the ICC since its establishment about a decade ago. Lubanga’s trial was due to be held in 2008, but was halted when it was discovered that the Office of Prosecution had failed to disclose evidence. It was restarted on January 26, 2009. Many critics have questioned why it took about six years to convict Lubanga after his arrest, bringing into light the weaknesses and
frailties of the International Criminal Court to administer timely justice.

Some have also questioned ICC’s equity when it comes to convictions of war criminals. All 28 people who have been charged by the ICC so far have been from Africa. The ICC is comprised of 120 countries currently party to the Rome Statute, with 33 African states. “By the numbers alone, assuming that conflicts occur with similar frequency in each inhabited continent, a national of a member state found to be in violation of the provisions of the statute is statistically more likely to be from Africa than from any other continent,” Nanjana Nyabola told Al Jazeera.

Neverthless, the ICC has only ever intervened, with the exception of Kenya (read more about that here), where the countries have asked for intervention or there has been a UN Security Council Resolution.

Another question that has been raised is how much impact the vilification of Lubanga will have on the communities who were affected by his crimes. Many members of the Ituri region, which was ravaged by Lubanga’s forces in 2003, are reported as feeling satisfied by the verdict, but not expressing their opinions publicly due to fear of potential supporters of Lubanga and the UPC.

The verdict has also come after a significant amount of time and the communities have already made progress towards reconciliation, despite ICC’s delay in court proceedings. There is also the issue of others who had been indicted alongside Lubanga, but are still at large in the DRC. A prime example is Bosco Ntganda, who was charged along with Lubanga, but still operates openly in the Eastern Congo region.

It is evident that ICC’s conviction of Lubanga is a historic milestone for international justice, but it also serves to highlight the court’s limitations and weaknesses when it comes to conducting international trials. The Lubanga trial serves as an important step in holding those who commit war crimes accountable by the international community.

Hot Topics

Mugesera deported after 17 years, questions loom over justice system in Rwanda

According to various media reports, Léon Mugesera, a Rwandan national who lived in Canada for 17 years, was deported back to Rwanda on January 23.  He had avoided deportation for so long on the basis that Canada and other developed nations refuse to deport those who are likely to be tortured and murdered in their home countries.

In 1992, Mugesera is reported to have given a speech that incited Hutus to commit violence against Tutsis.  The Rwandan genocide, in which 800,00 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred, of course followed in 1994.  In the meantime, the Rwandan government issued a warrant for Mugesera’s arrest, and he fled to Canada in 1993.

As Les Perreaux reports for the Globe and Mail, “[n]ow Rwandan justice will be tested by one of the highest-profile genocide suspects to arrive from a Western country.”

While it is believed he will avoid torture and the death penalty, the question as to whether he will receive a fair trial is still up in the air: “Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International maintain torture is no longer a major problem in Rwanda, but both question whether country can stage a fair trial. Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada says the federal government should have set an example by allowing the UN process to unfold” (Perreaux, for the Globe and Mail).

Interestingly, in its editorial on the issue, the Globe and Mail described Rwanda as having “grown up,” (a comment on its abolishment of the death penalty, and perhaps its new commitment to a fair justice system?).

***

Violence and mining companies – Reducing accountability to your office address?

A recent development in a Canadian class action suit against Anvil Mining Ltd. reveals the challenge of pursuing justice against international mining corporations.  Questions of accountability are proving murky when a corporation has offices in multiple countries, and is headquartered outside of a country where a case has been brought to court.

An All Africa article provides the details of the case:   “Anvil Mining, a Canadian corporation, is accused of providing logistical support to the Congolese army who raped, murdered and brutalised the people of Kilwa in the DRC. According to the United Nations, an estimated 100 civilians died as a direct result of the military action, including some who were executed and thrown in mass graves.”

The Quebec Court of Appeal recently overturned the decision of the Quebec Superior Court, who apparently saw fault on the part of Anvil’s Montreal office in a case of the Kilwa massacre in 2004.  The action was launched by the Canadian Association Against Impunity (CAAI), which has said it hopes to have its case against Anvil Mining Ltd. heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

As All Africa explains: “In the ruling last week, Justices Forget, Wagner and Giroux of the Quebec Court of Appeal, stated that there was insufficient connections to Quebec because Anvil Mining’s Montreal office was not involved in decisions leading to its alleged role in the massacre. They also stated that they believe the victims could have sought justice in the DRC or Australia, where Anvil Mining had its head office.”

The decision has also been described in another All Africa report as a “win” for Anvil.

***

MiningWatch Canada weighs in on new CIDA projects

Last month the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, announced it would fund three foreign aid pilot projects in Africa and South America, to be carried out as partnerships between Canadian NGOs and large mining corporations.  The NGOs include Plan Canada, World University Service of Canada, and World Vision Canada, who will be partnering with IAMGOLD, Rio Tinto Alcan, and Barrick Gold, respectively.

Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada had this to say:

“Subsidizing the CSR projects of well-endowed multinationals is an irresponsible use of public funds by CIDA, particularly as these CSR projects mask rather than address the serious local- and national-level development deficits caused by mining.

… Mining companies’ branding of themselves as bringers of development needs to be critically examined against the burgeoning ‘resource curse’ literature that links mining to deepening national impoverishment in mining-dependent developing countries (through loss of competitiveness, loss of development of other economic sectors, and unequal distribution of benefits associated with mineral wealth, for instance) and against the growing global local-level opposition to mining.”