The “carnage” of Goma imposes silence. If only for a minute. Respect to the dead… to our dead. Until when will we have to wait to see a national mourning decreed in tribute to the victims, in particular to the lynched policeman? In this dark context, the correspondence of the VPM, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo, addressed to the President of the United Nations Security Council, raises questions as to Kinshasa’s room for maneuver to obtain the “Accelerated withdrawal of DRC Monusco”.
While acknowledging that the tragic events in Goma follow anti-MONUSCO protests and the EAC Force, it is important to note that the true circumstances of this “carnage” are yet to be established. Investigations will reveal more. No hypothesis can be excluded, including that according to which the reasons put forward for these demonstrations, namely the withdrawal of blue helmets, could be a cleverly orchestrated pretext by instigators to be unmasked.
The establishment of the facts will make it possible to precisely determine the responsibilities and to take the necessary measures in the short, medium and long term. Importantly, the government’s decision to close non-compliant churches in North Kivu implicitly recognizes a laxity that undermines state authority.
However, the Anti-Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Act stipulates that non-profit associations, including churches, must provide information on their object and purpose, as well as on the identity of those who own, control or manage their activities. It is legitimate to wonder if the “Messianic Judaic Natural Faith towards the Nations (FNJMN)”, at the origin of the demonstrations of August 30 in Goma, is in good standing with the State.
Barely two days after these demonstrations, the VPM seized the Security Council, admitting in its letter to having been ignored in its previous initiatives. That says a lot…
Before going any further, it is important to consider whether the tactical preconditions are met. In diplomacy, major decisions are often negotiated behind the scenes, particularly within the Security Council. It is therefore necessary to assess the relationship of forces present and to determine whether Kinshasa has solid allies to support its request. Unfortunately, the answers seem to lean towards the negative.
In a context where several actors are involved in the resolution of the security crisis in eastern DRC, Kinshasa has accepted a systemic order of peace projects, which requires prior consultations. To ask the Security Council to authorize the withdrawal of Monusco in the middle of the electoral process would be to deny the anxiety-provoking nature of the elections in a country which faces the activism of 264 armed groups, both local and foreign. The Security Council considers that the situation in the DRC constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Congolese diplomacy must therefore show tact and avoid isolation by adopting a pragmatic approach in its positions.
Barring a miraculous show of force to impose peace in the east, the DRC will depend on the decision of the Security Council on December 20, the same day of the general elections. Despite the criticisms addressed to it, only a structural reform centered on the transformation of the governance of the Congolese state will plead in favor of a “responsible and lasting withdrawal” of the UN mission. Where are we in this regard? This is a major problem, yet ignored by the VPM in its correspondence to the Security Council.
Lembisa Tini (PhD)