Joint Monitoring Group Task Force - February 22

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KINSHASA 000196 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV KPKO CG RW SUBJECT: Joint Monitoring Group Task Force - February 22 REF: 07 Kinshasa 1419 ¶1. Summary. Intervention by MONUC political chief Christian Manahl February 22 in Goma promises to impose some discipline on future meetings of the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) Task Force. Manahl conveyed JMG envoys' dismay at the meetings' lack of focus and presented generally well-received proposals aimed at shortening and revitalizing them. Rwanda emphasized it had done everything asked of it in the Nairobi communique. Congo noted that leak of the number of genocide suspects on Rwanda's list had slowed its FDLR sensitization campaign, and said it expected to begin military action against the FDLR sometime after March 15. End Summary. -------------- An end to wrangling -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Christian Manahl, MONUC's acting political adviser, raised longstanding concerns about the productivity of the Nairobi communique's Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) Task Force during his co-chairmanship of its 10th meeting February 22 in Goma. Manahl, who had participated in the JMG envoys meeting in Brussels the week before, told members that envoys had complained that the task force spent too much of its time discussing minutes. He noted that one envoy had threatened to pull representatives from task force, calling the meetings "a waste of time." ¶3. (SBU) Manahl was forced to return to the subject again after Congolese and Rwandan delegates continued to spend considerable time wrangling over the text of minutes from the previous week. He said bluntly that the envoys were "absolutely scandalized that so much time is being wasted." The message was finally received, and welcomed, by most of members. Meeting reports will henceforward include only basic information on who attended, what was decided, who needs to take what action before the next meeting. (Note: Nevertheless, the meeting lasted six-and-a-half hours from start to finish. End note.) -------------- Down to business -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Discussion finally turned to Rwanda's and Congo's regular presentations on implementing the communique. The Rwandans emphasized they had done everything asked of them and asked again for specifics on the FDLR. The Congolese talked about their sensitization program to encourage FDLR to return to Rwanda. The leak of the number of potential "genocidaires" (over 6000) on �00A;Rwanda's list was slowing the program. FDLR members assumed they might be on it and were thus afraid to go home. The Congolese said the FARDC will begin military action against FDLR after March 15 and expected to resolve the problem "within 40 days." They also notified the group of a CNDP training center in Tshnzu, near Bunagana. ¶5. (SBU) Manahl provided an informal readout of the JMG envoys meeting in Brussels. He stated that the issue of the genocidaires list was controversial and would be dealt with in another forum. The Rwandans also offered their interpretation on the meeting. -------------- Revitalizing the task force -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Manahl cited a request that the Congo-Rwanda Joint Verification Commission (JVC) and the JMG Task Force work together, and suggested that a JVC representative address a future meeting of the task force. This was met with general interest. However, the Rwandans objected that it was not a proper function for the task force. An international member contended it was appropriate because both Congo and Rwanda continue to raise allegations of violations in task force meetings. The Rwandans insisted they were not making "allegations," but simply "informing" the task force. ¶7. (SBU) Manahl and the Congolese delegation proposed that the task force meet every two weeks going forward. He suggested that other activities might take place during the vacant week. The Congolese suggested members could visit a small group of South Kivu FDLR who were ready to repatriate. The Rwandans expressed concern about security and immunity in connection with traveling in Congo, pointing out they were uncomfortable with doing so without diplomatic credentials. The task force agreed to request the Congolese government to issue travel documents which would address these concerns. ¶8. (SBU) In an effort to energize future proceedings, members agreed KINSHASA 00000196 002 OF 002 to Manahl's proposal that the next task force meeting hear presentations by Congo and MONUC on the FDLR sensitization program and DDRRR. -------------- Comment: Deja-vu all over again -------------- ¶9. Comment: MONUC's three-month presidency of the task force has had its share of growing pains. Its acting chairman bypassed agreement by participants at the initial task force meeting in December on a limited reporting format similar to that put forward by Manahl (reftel),leading directly to the current malaise. It also failed to follow-up Congolese delegates' lack of response to the Rwandan request for travel documents made at that first meeting, leaving the Rwandans to raise it again 10 weeks later. End Comment. Garvelink