In May, Rwanda Defence Force (RDF)’s Brigadier General Ronald Rwivanga took over as Director of the Eastern Africa Standby Force (EASF), a regional security organisation mandated to promote peace and stability across Eastern Africa. Rwivanga, who had served as RDF spokesperson since December 2020, succeeded Kenya’s Brig. Gen. Paul Kahuria Njema, who completed a three-year term. The EASF is one of the five regional multidimensional forces under the African Standby Force (ASF), bringing together military, police, and civilian components. In an interview with The Context by The New Times, Rwivanga discussed the force’s readiness and its role in regional security, the impact of conflicts between member states, security challenges linked to the conflict in eastern DR Congo, and cooperation between regional security mechanisms. Read the excerpts of the interview below: To start with, what is the Eastern Africa Standby Force (EASF) about? The Eastern Africa Standby Force was established in 2004 by countries of the Eastern African region as part of the African Union’s initiative to create the African Standby Force. Today, the Eastern Africa Standby Force serves as one of the African Union’s five regional standby arrangements. It is mandated to support peace support operations, conflict prevention, crisis response and post-conflict reconstruction in the Eastern African region. Our mandate is basically to promote peace, security and stability in the Eastern African region. We envision a region that is capable of responding, on call, to conflicts through African-led solutions, while supporting conflict prevention, peace support operations and humanitarian assistance where a country needs collective support from member states. There is a tendency for people to think that the organisation has to be involved in military interventions. Standby forces are supposed to be standby, to respond when the need arises. What is the model for mobilising the force? Are the forces stationed somewhere, or are they based in their home countries and ready to deploy? In 2014, we achieved full operational capability. We evaluated each nation’s pledged capabilities. We visited the contributing nations and proved that the forces were there. Some have even been deployed. The forces are there and ready to respond. It is also the political will of the member states to accept an intervention when and if the need arises. That is the scenario in which our forces will be requested to exercise themselves in a real situation. In regard to testing our forces, we have done that quite a lot, not only through physical deployment but also through exercises conducted in different countries. What have you done to ensure that these forces can actually operate together? We have done command post exercises, field training exercises and maritime exercises, including in Djibouti and along the coast. The idea is to use exercises and scenarios to bring our respective states and armies together and show that we can respond together. The best way to prove or test the hypothesis is to put it to a test, and we have done that. Tanzania is not part of the Eastern Africa Standby Force. How would you compare where EASF stands today with other regional standby arrangements, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) arrangements? It is important for people to understand that regional deployments are not necessarily made up of all member states. For example, SADC deployed in Mozambique and the DRC with particular member states participating. Similarly, the forces involved in different operations in Somalia have included Uganda, Kenya, Burundi and Ethiopia. EASF can also work with the African Union and other organisations before deployment because we are all part of the African Standby Force. More than two decades after EASF was established, is the region more stable and safer? I would certainly say it is much safer. If we look at individual states’ stability, Rwanda, for instance, is much safer than it was before. Not because of EASF, but because of our collective support and engagements in bringing peace and stability. It is not just about intervention in times of conflict. There are preventive measures, sharing intelligence, understanding each other’s scenarios and working together. We are also a multidimensional force, bringing together military, police and civilian components to create stability in the region through dialogue, conferences and continuous engagement. To a large extent, I can say that we have created stability. Do disputes and tensions between member states sometimes affect how you work as a team? Surprisingly, this organisation has not been affected in any way by conflicts between individual states. We have resolved most of them along the way without necessarily involving the regional organisation. For instance, a couple of years ago, we had border issues with Uganda. The problems were solved, but we did not in any way halt cooperation at the regional level in the Eastern Africa Standby Force. We continued pledging our forces and participating in collective security initiatives. The same applies to Burundi. Both countries have been quite consistent in participating in military, police and civilian engagements. Our readiness has never been put into question throughout our existence. We have always been united for a collective purpose. How do security challenges emanating from eastern DR Congo, which is outside the EASF framework, complicate your engagement? We are engaged through various mechanisms. For instance, the African Union has provided financial support for fact-finding missions in countries affected by the conflict in the DR Congo. We carried out a fact-finding mission as EASF and delivered our reports to the African Union, and our proposals are listened to. Our mandate is not only about intervention. We also have preventive diplomacy as one of our mandates. What were some of the key findings or recommendations from that mission? Most of what was recommended is actually not new. It is important to look at the root causes of the conflict because the effects of these conflicts often affect neighbouring countries. For instance, the refugee crisis affecting communities, including Kinyarwanda-speaking communities, was something we identified and which has often been mentioned by many organisations that have conducted research. We also raised the issue of migration and the causes of the exodus of communities. In the case of the DR Congo, we identified ethnicity and the relationship to border countries as some of the issues. We also mentioned the problem of remnants of the FDLR, which have been causing mayhem in the Eastern African region and Rwanda. Those are some of the issues that we raised in our report. Do you see enough political will for greater collaboration between regional security organisations, including the Eastern and Southern African standby forces? If I remember very well, following the M23 capture of Goma and Bukavu, there was an agreement that the Nairobi and Rwanda processes needed to be combined. I think that was what was done. There were also other initiatives, including the Washington agreement and the Doha process for the internal management of issues in the DRC. When all those processes are put together, it would be unfair to say that we have not tried. We have tried through the Rwanda and Nairobi processes, and gone beyond that to include the Doha and Washington processes. We are waiting for people to meet their part of the bargain. I think the agreements were very clear. So is EASF playing a role behind the scenes? Yes, absolutely. If you talk of EASF, you are talking about the summation of individual countries. In that whole equation, we have Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda, all of which border the DR Congo. Kenya also deployed in the DR Congo through the regional mechanism. So, in one way or another, we are involved. Rwanda and Burundi have had difficult relations. How do you ensure that such differences do not affect the force? When it comes to the force, it is important for people to understand that the organisation has continued to function collectively. Both countries have continued participating in the military, police and civilian engagements, and our readiness has remained intact. You have mentioned that EASF has been involved in preventive diplomacy, exercises and other forms of engagement. Does that mean its role is broader than simply deploying troops? Yes. It is not just about intervention in times of conflict. We have preventive measures, sharing intelligence, understanding each other’s scenarios, dialogue, conferences and continuous engagement as a region. The military, police and civilian components work together to create stability in the region. Standby forces are supposed to be ready to respond when the need arises, but that does not mean we have to be deployed every time there is a crisis. If there is no crisis in the region, then we are okay. We do not have to put our forces to use. We must, however, be ready for the worst-case scenario.
