Two weeks ago in an article for Pambazuka News, Carol Chehade explored the “seamless borders of genocide” in the Democratic Republic of Congo (http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=29835). In this article Yav Katshung Joseph weighs into the discussion about the DRC with an exploration of the security and resource issues fuelling conflict in the Great Lakes Region. Internal normalisation, the establishment of the rule of law, reconciliation and reconstruction on a regional level are key to bringing peace and security to millions of citizens, he argues.

Several interconnected elements have shaped the conflict in the Great Lakes Region: neighbouring countries’ interests, economic resources, security concerns, ethnic division and so on. That is true for all core countries of the Great Lakes region (Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda) and it has been established by many observers and analysts that the root causes of the conflicts are insecurity, issues of identity, poor governance, political opportunism with its military options, and selfish economic interests (See J. Cartier-Bresson, Revue Tiers-Monde, n°174, Tome XLIV, avril–juin 2003).

In this regard, if realistic possibilities for conflict transformation are to be developed, the resources and security concerns will need to be addressed. Therefore, this article will focus only on these two issues: resources and security. I will offer my perspective on the how to transform conflicts by using resources and security as tools of reconciliation and reconstruction in the Great Lakes Region.

Security and Resources as sources of conflict in the Great Lakes Region

Security concerns

The question of security throughout the region has continued to be a major issue. The cycle of violence in the Great Lakes region began with the 1993 civil war in Burundi, which was followed by the 1994 Rwandan genocide targeting ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutus. Both conflicts resulted in large numbers of refugee flows into neighbouring Zaire (now the DRC). The conflict then spread into Zaire, as both Tutsis and Hutus reside there in significant numbers.

Rwanda, citing the need not only to protect its own citizens from attacks by Hutus, but also to protect Tutsi-Congolese, launched incursions into eastern DRC in 1996.

In the beginning of the war in the DRC (1996), Rwanda and Uganda formed an alliance with the Congolese rebel movement led by Laurent Kabila. However, this “triple K” alliance (Kampala-Kinshasa-Kigali) fell apart in 1998, because of the number of security concerns cited by Uganda and Rwanda. Uganda maintained that it needed to stop insurgents (the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Allied Democratic Forces) from attacking Uganda through southern Sudan and eastern DRC. The Rwandan government invoked the right to “self-defence” against cross-border incursions into its territory by DRC-based Hutu militias. In reaction to the growing hostilities, Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe justified their military intervention in the DRC by stating that they were seeking to preserve the unity of a Southern African Development Community (SADC) member state (Chad also provided a small number of troops at the DRC government’s request).

Political and security justifications for their intervention notwithstanding, the opportunity to exploit the DRC’s lucrative natural resources also provided an impetus for the military intervention of some states of the region. However, while the clamour for economic resources may well have proved to be an obstacle to peace in the DRC, the conflict has been triggered by the security concerns of neighbouring states such as Rwanda and Uganda, who argue that it is necessary to stop the incursions into their territories, of various armed groups based in the Congo.

Resource concerns

One of the most perplexing issues in the DRC conflict has been and remains that of the exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources. Illegal exploitation of the mineral resources of DRC has been a constant feature in the discussion about the war in DRC in general, and especially in the eastern part of the country. A main dividing line in different analysis has been between those highlighting the exploitation of mineral resources as a main aim for the foreign armed forces, and others seeing their use of existing resources mainly as a way of financing the war efforts. It has long been established that the exploitation of these resources, including coltan, gold, and diamonds in eastern Congo, and diamonds, copper, cobalt, and timber in central DRC, contributed to and exacerbated the conflict in the DRC. Concerned with reports of pillaging of resources by the foreign forces, the UN Security Council mandated an independent panel to investigate these allegations. The panel has produced a series of reports, detailing the circumstances of this exploitation.

Regional actors have been accused of aggression and “foreign adventurism” with regard to Congolese territory and natural resources. In other words, while parties to the conflict in the country may have been originally motivated by security concerns, their continued presence in the DRC is attributable to economic gains derived from the DRC. The report further stated that criminal groups linked to the armies of Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe and the Government of the DRC have benefited from such micro-conflicts. This has been the conflict, and by extension any envisaged conflict resolution mechanism, an intricate affair requiring a multifaceted and comprehensive approach. This is critical for the peace process, because, according to reports, these “groups will not disband voluntarily... They have built up a self-financing war economy centred on mineral exploitation” (See Final report by the UN Panel of Experts).

The rationale for intervention by the neighbouring states became self-enforcing and the localised conflicts became regional. As such, the conflicts within and between the countries of the Great Lakes require regionally based and targeted solutions, along with the cooperation of relevant neighbouring states.

Transforming Security and Resources as sources of conflict to options for reconciliation and reconstruction in the Great Lakes Region

Reconciliation and reconstruction are essential elements of peace building. The key to transforming conflicts is to build strong equitable relations where distrust and fear were once the norm (Louis Kriesberg, Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Settlement. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 322-335).

In the Great Lakes Region as in many African countries, violent conflict has become the “normal” state of affairs. Control of economic resources has become an important factor in motivating and sustaining armed conflicts. Complex political economies, which often hide behind the outward symbols of statehood and national sovereignty, have grown up around conflict. The challenge therefore is to transform regional and national political economies that are served by violent conflict into healthy systems based on political participation, social and economic inclusion, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Accordingly, attempting to transform conflicts for reconciliation and reconstruction in the Great Lakes Region, all countries should try to stimulate positive developments in the region that will enable them to conclude that their security and economic interests are better served through fostering stability at home and improving relations with their neighbours than by allowing their neighbours’ turmoil to deflect them from their chosen path of peace, reconciliation, democracy, and economic development.

Moreover, on security, ignoring the tensions and misunderstanding between Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda will have far reaching implications to the stability and social economic development of the Great Lakes Region with resources being diverted from human and economic development to warfare. For this reason it is important for them to work together for the restoration of peaceful dialogue and cordial relations between them. In this regard, allegations of hosting and/or training of rebel forces by neighbouring states for planned aggression must be investigated and stopped. Incursions of the forces of one state into another can lead to rising tensions and inter-state armed conflicts which if not promptly addressed will affect the well-being of the socio-economic development of the populations. If rebel groups in Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda are not neutralized, rebel incursions prevented, inter-state aggression arrested and territorial integrity secured, the result can be renewal of interstate conflicts and destabilization or even their disintegration.

Further, on the issue of resources, the Great Lakes Region is rich in natural resources, which are at stake for many actors in the conflict. However, resources are also a potential for post conflict rehabilitation and development. Therefore, reduction in the exploitation of mineral and other natural resources for the purposes of war, countries should work to examine ways of limiting the exploitation of such resources for the purpose of conflict. They should also seek to identify and promote the means by which such resources are safeguarded and managed in a way that reduces conflict and ensures that they benefit the population. Equally, there is a need to develop institutions and frameworks that both integrate/transform the informal to a formal economy, governed by a reasonable rule of law, transparency and efficiency, without marginalizing local and regional actors.

Concluding remarks

While the conflict dynamics in the Great Lakes region are complex and involve a multiplicity of interlocking regional and international actors, we should recognise that the region has made some progress in overcoming instability, but several threats remain.

In other words, each of the countries in the region has surely known and has pursued its own process of internal normalisation. Nevertheless, it is clear that the reconciliation process in one country is strongly linked to that of the others. Any viable solution must have a regional character. It is therefore important that the region’s constituent states understand that their security and economic interests are better served through fostering stability at home and improving relations with their neighbours than by allowing their neighbours’ turmoil to deflect them.

On the regional integration level, it is important to use a forum like the International Conference on the Great Lakes to speed up the normalisation process between all these states and to define strategies for political and economic integration of the region. The resumption of activities of the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) would be a vital step. Other institutions of a social, cultural and scientific nature can also contribute to deepening the progress.

Moreover, countries in the GLR should work for the establishment of the rule of law. This implies the democratisation of power, good governance, respect for human rights and the end of impunity at every level through the creation of effective and independent courts and tribunals. Efforts can be made to set up functional Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (There are attempts in Burundi and in the DRC) and other traditional mechanisms such as Gacaca courts in Rwanda to address issues of accountability for atrocities and reconciliation.

Further, in order to build a sustainable peace, countries in the region should work on political cohabitation and border security. The security of borders must be guaranteed and checkpoints ensured in common. To reach these objectives, it is necessary to strengthen the capacities of real republican armies in every country in the region and to strengthen measures for checking small arms trafficking at the borders. It is also important for countries to strengthen peaceful coexistence between themselves by respecting the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of neighbouring countries.

In brief, and as one third of all ended civil wars in Africa restart, I would like to see post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation efforts in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the DRC satisfactorily completed. I would hope that peace and stability become realities for the millions of citizens in this region as we move from crises and conflicts to security and stability.

* Yav Katshung Joseph is a Lecturer in Law, at the Faculty of Law, University of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo. He is also the Executive Director of CERDH (Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche en Droits de l’Homme, Democratie et Justice Transitionnelle/Centre for Human Rights, Democracy and Transitional Justice Studies), and Coordinator of the UNESCO Chair for Human Rights, Peace, Conflict resolution and Good Governance/University of Lubumbashi. He holds an LL.B and LL.M from the University of Lubumbashi; another LL.M from University of Pretoria, South Africa, and a Diploma in Transitional Justice from the Transitional Justice Fellowship Programme (ICTJ & IJR joint programme), South Africa. He is also an Advocate of the Court of Appeal of Lubumbashi. Mr. Yav Katshung Joseph has published numerous articles on human rights, law and transitional justice in scholarly journals. For contact: [email][email protected] or [email][email protected] Phone: +243 9 970 21 758

* Please send comments to [email protected]