By Bojana Coulibaly
The UN Group of Experts (GoE) aims to provide information on the conflict in DRC based on field data collected during a given reporting period. They subsequently provide an expert analysis on the context directed to an audience comprised of the UN personnel, diplomats, scholars, the media and the wider audience. Like for any research project, the methodology used by the GoE to collect data will highly impact the findings. In addition to a precise methodology which will determine the types of sources of information that will be used, research integrity, will allow the experts to establish an informed and scientific analysis. To what extent does the Group of Experts abide by the above research ethics requirements, and is this report a reliable source of information on the DRC conflict?
On the data collection and reporting methodology
The first methodological element to be pointed out in the report is the stated “cooperation” and “collaboration” between the UN peacekeeping mission in DRC, MONUSCO, and the GoE (Para 3). While it is common that the GoE receives support from MONUSCO, the latter has formally declared that it provides logistical and operational support to the DRC government coalition, which comprises FARDC, FDLR, Wazalendo, European mercenaries, FDNB, SAMIDRC, in its war against the AFC/M23. Thus MONUSCO provides intelligence and artillery to the UN sanctioned militia FDLR, which has been integrated into the Congolese army, and which was founded and led by the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, a group whom MONUSCO was tasked to neutralize. MONUSCO has therefore become an active party to the conflict and cannot as a result be a credible partner to the Group of Experts in the collection of data and drafting of this report.
In addition to MONUSCO being the principal collaborator of the GoE, it is also used as one of the main sources of information as stated in the footnotes of the report. The GoE while collecting data from several sources including from active parties to the conflict such as FARDC, has not collected any data from M23 nor has it used M23 as a source of information. This method is illustrative of research imbalance on the part of the GoE. In fact, the lack of scientific objectivity in this report goes as far as the Group considers “rumors” and fake news about the M23 as credible information. This relates to the claim in the report that there is a connection between ADF and M23 (Annex 9) which will be discussed further below. The report indeed uses one-sided information based on the perspective of the DRC government coalition, which rather than being an independent source, as required by the data collection and reporting exercise, is an active participant in the conflict.
On many occasions the GoE indicates that it is using “independent sources”, “eyewitness testimonies”, “expert testimonies of government officials, military officials, of countries in the Great Lakes” without specifying their origin. This form of approximation is a breach of research ethics which shows explicit bias on the part of the Group. This method is used in mass communication whereby one refers to an “anonymous” source to back a claim and present it as “general knowledge”. It is equivalent to using a hypothesis, to state a conclusion. Such a propaganda method was used by the American TV channel Fox News with the expression “some people say” following 9/11 as a means to influence public opinion mainly in supporting the “war on terror” during the George W. Bush administration.
Claims of responsibility of the M23 and the alleged collaboration between ADF and M23
The report begins by linking Da’esh to ADF, responsible for the majority of human rights violations and deaths of civilians in DRC. The GoE ultimately seeks to establish a link between ADF and M23 based on what it calls “rumors… about potential contacts between ADF and AFC/M23” (Para 27, emphases are mine), as well as based on the fact that the latest battles between M23 and the government coalition took place in the Great North Kivu close to where ADF has been committing violence. The main “evidence” for the supposed collaboration (Para 27) between ADF and M23 is fake news posted on X (Annex 9) which claims that “a non-aggression and collaboration pact had been established between ‘ADF Nalu’ and AFC/M23. According to this alleged agreement, ADF would cease attacks on civilians and focus solely on FARDC and Wazalendo forces, facilitating M23’s advance. In return for financial and military support, ADF would receive 70% of Beni’s cacao revenues for ten years, contingent on M23 securing control of the area.” Despite M23 denouncing this accusation, in a statement made on X, as “fake news”, the GoE considers it as credible evidence.
To debunk the claim of any collaboration between ADF and M23, the president of the movement, Bertrand Bisimwa, in a recent interview on Al Jazeera, indicated that the M23 has been the first to denounce the threat of ADF 10 years ago. Bisimwa also stated that the M23 has offered, a decade ago, to collaborate with the DRC government to neutralize ADF. In fact, ADF has been most active during the ten years period that M23 members have been in exile.
The objective of the GoE by seeking to establish a link between ADF and M23 seems to be to present M23 as “a terrorist group”, which while being the main line used by the DRC government to justify its ongoing offensive against the M23, has no factual basis. In its definition, a terrorist group, like ADF, attacks innocent civilians and state infrastructure for the sole purpose of coercing the government into accepting the terrorist group’s territorial and resources control. Evidence on the ground has shown that the M23 has on the contrary been providing security to civilians in the areas it is present in. Another argument against the claim that M23 is a “terrorist group” is the protection by M23 of the Rutshuru Hydroelectric Power Station which provides electricity to Goma where the government coalition has its principal basis and where a number of international NGOs are present. If M23 was in a logic of terror, they would have destroyed the Power Station long time ago so as to weaken their opponent and coerce the DRC government into accepting their demands. On the contrary, the M23 is securing the area around the hydroelectric project which is being funded by the European Union. In reality, the M23 has requested direct dialogue with the DRC government which seems contrary to actions of a terrorist group. What is more, according to former ADF members, ADF has been supplied weapons and intelligence by the Congolese army. That is to say, if there is a link to be established between entities, the GoE may very well link ADF to FARDC.
On the claim of “violation of territorial integrity” and “territorial expansion”
With regards to the accusation of “Rwandan aggression” and “violation of territorial integrity” echoed by the DRC government, the UNSC member states, other international actors, and the media; M23 is a Congolese entity comprised of Congolese nationals, thus the argument of “foreign occupation” is irrelevant. The vast majority of M23 fighters are native to the Masisi and Rutshuru provinces and their ancestors have been native to that region for centuries. Denying them the right of land and statehood is a violation of their basic human rights. There remains close to a million Congolese refugees in neighboring countries who have been pushed to exile for thirty years and who are yet to be allowed to return safely home.
The “territorial expansion” argument omnipresent in the report, which contends that M23 is advancing towards the Great North Kivu to seek control over a territory rich in mineral resources denies the fact that the M23 is being attacked from that area by the DRC government coalition forcing M23 to move towards the areas that they are being attacked from. The M23 president Bertrand Bisimwa has indicated that there is no other way of stopping an offensive than by silencing the weapons in the place where they are fired from. The DRC government coalition had deployed 15 regiments of 22,000 men and a heavy artillery in Lubero in its offensive against the M23 prior to the December 15th scheduled meeting between the DRC and Rwanda’s heads of state. As a result, this offensive by the government coalition has led to the takeover by M23 of several locations in the Lubero region. It seems to be irrational to talk about “territorial expansion” when referring to the M23, while the DRC government coalition is the one attacking, whereas M23 is requesting a dialogue which the DRC government is rejecting.
On the alleged exploitation of Rubaya
As for Rubaya and the accusation of exploitation of coltan mines; M23 has on several occasions indicated that they have intervened in Rubaya on a humanitarian ground. As it has been documented for over two decades, the FDLR and Nyatura have been committing violence in Rubaya against civilians for three decades, using children in the mines and subjecting women to sexual violence. M23 has issued clear directives prohibiting all M23 members from accessing the mines. They have removed all the weapons from the mines and have forbidden children from approaching the area. M23 has stated that their objective is to provide security in Rubaya, while allowing the private entities that have been exploiting the mines to continue their activities. The GoE presents no evidence that any M23 member or the movement as a whole are exploiting the mines of Rubaya. The GoE is assuming that M23 is exploiting the mines due to their mere presence in Rubaya. This does not constitute evidence.
The invalidation of the Luanda peace process through the minimization of the threat of FDLR
While the neutralization of FDLR is the principal element agreed upon for an ease of tensions between DRC and Rwanda as part of the Luanda peace process, the GoE is minimizing the security threat of FDLR. This is despite the fact that the militia, responsible for the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, has launched numerous attacks against Rwanda in the last three decades, and has expressly indicated its intention to return to Rwanda to finish the project of extermination of the Tutsi it has started in 1994. What is more, as mentioned above, the primary mandate of MONUSCO has been to neutralize the UN sanctioned FDLR known as the primary driver of conflict in eastern DRC. Today, the UN peacekeeping mission is fighting on the same side as FDLR through its collaboration with the Congolese government which has integrated FDLR into its army and which has pledged to “change the regime” in Rwanda with the help of the genocidal force. Despite these known elements, the GoE is downplaying the threat of FDLR.
The GoE, through this report, thus contributes in invalidating the Luanda peace process designed to address the root causes of the conflict. At the onset of the report the GoE states that the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) agreed upon by both DRC and Rwanda “to neutralize, relocate or repatriate FDLR” as a starting point for a peaceful solution to the conflict, “raises human rights and humanitarian law concerns” (Summary: Para 6). For the survivors of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, and for the hundreds of thousands of Congolese Tutsi who have been attacked, persecuted and pushed to exile by the FDLR for 30 years, talking about the “human rights” of FDLR is an insult to their human dignity, whereas the UN has pledged to protect them.
The whitewashing of Wazalendo sanctioned militias
The language used in the report when referring to the DRC government’s collaboration with UN sanctioned armed groups that comprise Wazalendo and that have been committing atrocities for decades in DRC, further demonstrates the partisanship and the ethical flaws of the Group of Experts. While the GoE clearly states in this report that the Wazalendo are led by the sanctioned warlord Guidon Shimiray Mwissa, the Group minimizes the responsibility of the DRC government which uses Wazalendo as its army reserves (enacted through a DRC Senate decree) in its war against the M23.
The Group rather than naming the DRC government as a substantial instigator of violence through its collaboration with Wazalendo, seeks to justify “DRC’s reliance on Wazalendo for security” (Paras 30-32). There is indeed no condemnation by the GoE of this critical conflict-driving actor. Instead, the Group simply states the issue in a non-critical way. This is despite the fact that the Wazelendo have been infused with anti-Tutsi genocide ideology namely by their spokesperson Jules Mulumba and the FDLR as well as its Congolese splinter group Nyatura. The attack on Nturo village in the Masisi in October 2023 where 300 homes belonging to Tutsi families were burned to the ground for the sole reason of belonging to Congolese Tutsi, is an illustration of the violence that the Wazalendo are capable of committing. The GoE in fact fails to consider that the M23 may have legitimate reasons to see as a security threat, the DRC government which uses the Wazalendo as its army reserves against a targeted and vulnerable section of its people.
The failure to condemn the use of European mercenaries in violation of UN conventions
Other than a single casual mention of “private military companies” in the report, the GoE fails to raise the important issue of DRC’s reliance on 1600 European mercenaries fighting along the FARDC against M23. The use of mercenaries has been prohibited by the African Union five decades ago, yet the UN GoE does not seem to consider it to be an issue that its peacekeeping mission MONUSCO is directly collaborating with 1600 European mercenaries by providing them with logistical and operational support.
In light of its questionable methodology and analysis, the GoE report thus fails to appear as a credible source of information on the DRC conflict.