A little over a week ago, the town of Goma in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) fell to the Congolese rebel group, M23. The response to its fall by the DR Congo government, the United Nations, some western governments and media has been predictable. It has largely been one of misinformation and distraction and not very helpful in resolving the conflict in that part of the country. One reaction was outrage. The UN, western media and certain organisations made very loud noises about a massive humanitarian crisis that was bound to follow. The humanitarian crisis that they are warning about has actually been happening in that part of DRC for thirty years, long before the M23 was formed. But all those shouting themselves hoarse will not mention that. The genocidal FDLR, for instance, has displaced local populations from their land, robbed them and killed others, sowed an anti-Tutsi ideology and helped carry it out for nearly thirty years. They have acted as a rogue authority, taxing locals and selling minerals in the area for that long. But apparently those atrocities are not horrible enough to cause outrage. It is now more than one week since the M23 took Goma. The predicted humanitarian catastrophe has not materialised. The opposite is actually happening. M23 has moved quickly to restore power and water and to open businesses. Civilians displaced by the fighting are going back to their villages. The huge IDP (internally displaced people) camps around Goma where they had been held hostage by the Congolese army and used as human shields in the war with M23 are quickly emptying. The camps were also used, for different reasons, as evidence of the humanitarian crisis by different groups. For DRC authorities and western media, to demonise M23 and their alleged Rwandan allies. For humanitarian organisations for raising funds and maintaining relevance. For MONUSCO, the UN peacekeeping mission, to extend their stay. But you will not hear about the population returning to their villages from the media or foreign diplomats. They will keep up the hysteria of doom and devastation. The return of a semblance of normalcy will, predictably, create more outrage. This time because the quick return to normal life and the dismantling of IDP camps destroys the narrative that has been fed to the world and is a threat to the huge humanitarian industry that has been built on the suffering of ordinary people in conflict areas. We have been here before. In Rwanda in 1994 as the genocide against the Tutsi was being committed and the fighting to end it intensified, the defeated genocidal government, its army and interahamwe militia fled to Zaire (DR Congo today) and herded before them more than two million Rwandans into the country. The world’s media and humanitarian organisations shifted attention from the genocide to the fleeing mass. They became the story. They were the new and more pressing humanitarian crisis. The victims of the genocide, bodies still lying in streets and hillsides, were quickly forgotten. It did not bother the media and humanitarian brigade that the refugee camps were in fact military camps holding the refugees hostage from where they mounted armed incursions into Rwanda and killed hundreds of people. That changed when the government of Rwanda attacked the camps to free the hostage population and repatriate them home, and also deal with the security threat from them. That also caused outrage. The solution to a real humanitarian crisis was itself made a crisis. The noise about that has never quite died down. Which begs the question. When does a conflict situation become a dire humanitarian crisis and who determines that it is? It seems that some have arrogated themselves that exclusive right and apply it selectively, when convenient. The second source of outrage is what they call the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DR Congo. Who has done that? The M23 is a Congolese group fighting a government that seeks to deprive them of their rights as citizens of DR Congo and as human beings. Maybe words have changed meaning and some of us do not know about it. Does an internal conflict qualify to be categorised as violation of sovereignty? Can citizens of a country taking up arms to defend themselves against extermination by a foreign armed group and its local allies and its own inept government be said to be a violation of the territorial integrity of their country? The intention is, of course, clear. It is to do two things: point the finger at Rwanda as an invading force and deny that M23 is Congolese, or when they grudgingly accept it is, discount its military capability. The logic is that it can only be by a foreign power, which is Rwanda. They are singing Tshisekedi’s song of scapegoating and deflection of responsibility. Which takes us to the second response: a flurry of diplomatic activity supposedly to find a solution to the conflict. Meetings have been held at the UN and regional levels. Diplomats have visited different capitals, especially Kigali and Kinshasa. Statements have been issued. Most of these, however, refuse to recognise and address the real issues and so the efforts are misdirected. There is some laziness about what they say, or perhaps it is a calculated distraction. Everything boils down to minerals. M23 is after minerals. Rwanda is after minerals. How come when FDLR controlled mines in Rubaya there was no outrage? Is it perhaps because a certain European country was doing business there? All media and diplomats’ talk is about Rwanda-backed M23 causing humanitarian crisis or Rwanda invading DR Congo. No mention of why M23 are fighting. Even assuming that Rwanda is in DR Congo, they do not say what might have caused that. Surely it cannot be love of adventure because they are bored in their small country. Ah, it is minerals of course. There is no mention of foreign forces fighting in DR Congo – Burundi, for instance – and what they are doing there. You never hear about their casualties, massive from what I hear. Or the European mercenaries, completely ignored until the fact of their presence could not be hidden any longer with their humiliating surrender and repatriation through Rwanda. Even then hardly any mention. The result of ignoring the root cause of the conflict are the misdirected and unreasonable demands that will certainly not end it or foster peace. Nearly all statements demand that M23 cease fighting and withdraw from areas that it has taken. They are unlikely to accept these demands. For several reasons. One, these demands are premised on the idea that they are foreign or foreign-backed. Two, they have the upper hand in the fighting. Already they have declared a unilateral ceasefire and made demands of their own, which is likely to put pressure on President Tshisekedi and his backers to negotiate. Three, they have done that before and been betrayed and so will not repeat it. Four, they know the horror that would befall the population in those areas if they were to withdraw. This time it would be a real catastrophe, not media exaggeration. The statements also ask Rwanda to withdraw its troops from DR Congo. Rwanda has denied it is fighting in the DR Congo, but has consistently said it will not put down its defences when a security threat to its existence remains present in DR Congo. First deal with the FDLR problem, Rwanda insists. The most ridiculous of all these demands has come from DR Congo. They are putting all their diplomatic effort into seeking punishment for Rwanda. This includes asking private entities such as football clubs to terminate agreements they have with Rwanda. This is yet another example of scapegoating, failure to take responsibility for their own failures and incompetence and a distraction. Rwanda has never been the problem. The problem is the DR Congo government not taking up its responsibility towards its citizens. As President Paul Kagame has said, even if Rwanda were to relocate away from this region, the problems of DR Congo would remain if not addressed correctly. Any diplomatic breakthrough will only come when the grievances and demands of M23 are addressed, Rwanda’s security concerns taken seriously and the DR Congo state becomes fully functional. The west must stop making excuses for Tshisekedi’s failures and demand that he step up to his responsibilities. Everything else is a waste of time.
