GOMA NOTES 04/16/08 - GOMA PROCESS: BACK TO THE BUSINESS AT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 KINSHASA 000359 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL KPKO CG UN EUN SUBJECT: GOMA NOTES 04/16/08 - GOMA PROCESS: BACK TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND REF: Kinshasa 349 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Goma process Joint Technical Committee on Peace and Security debated and approved bylaws for the conduct of internal business in Goma April 15-16. The sessions were generally businesslike, in contrast to an earlier meeting April 12. Many of the most egregious passages had been massaged out by the time the draft reached the plenary, thanks in particular to the patience and skill of the Facilitation members within the working group. Under the rules, decision-making will be by consensus among full members; in case of "persistent" deadlock, the Facilitation will arbitrate. The committee will next consider provincial structures and finally the calendar. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) After a dreadful session on April 12, the Goma process Joint Technical Committee on Peace and Security (JTCPS) resumed on April 15 and 16 to review draft bylaws (internal rules) that had been produced over the previous week or so by a working group that included 11 representatives of the GDRC and of the Goma signatories, plus members of the International Facilitation and sundry "experts" who seemed more like enforcers and overseers for the JTCPS Co-Chairman, Vice Admiral Didier Etumba. ¶3. (SBU) Etumba resumed his role as co-chair, joined by MONUC's John Almstrom April 15 and the EU's Jean-Michel Dumont April 16 (with Almstrom gone to Bukavu). Almstrom had had a talk with Etumba after a brush with chaos at the April 12 meeting, and it appears that others in his entourage had as well: while occasionally subsiding into irrelevant soliloquy, both plenaries were generally businesslike, and purposeful work even went on (with FARDC Regional Commander General Vainqueur Mayala and his staff, as well as various members of the Facilitation, rushing off at various times) after news of the terrible aviation disaster reached the meeting room (ref A). ¶4. (SBU) Etumba was on the whole courteous to his interlocutors, cutting them off unceremoniously only when they started (as is their wont) trailing off into obsessive ranting or ineffectual petulance. After a free-for-all the previous Saturday, everyone seemed a bit startled that things were once again being taken in hand and, on the whole, they shaped up accordingly. ¶5. (SBU) This was fortunate, as the business at hand was sensitive and, if mismanaged, perilous. Since the resolution of many contentious issues had been deferred on March 9 at the time of the parties' recommitment to the Goma process ("we can deal with that when we consider the internal rules"),and since granting the JTCPS the right and duty to come up with its own internal procedures had been a key GDRC concession, a lot was riding on the outcome. ¶6. (SBU) It was far from clear that a workable set of rules would in fact come out of all this; what had emerged from some of the working group's early sessions had been scary. Many of the most egregious passages had been massaged out by the time the draft reached the plenary, thanks in particular to the patience and skill of the Facilitation members within the working group (particularly EUSEC's Lt-Col J.-L. Colovan),but there were still a few land mines in the working draft, places where either the government or the Facilitation had to succeed in putting their foot down or the JTCPS would have faced serious mischief going forward. (Comment: It probably still does, but at least some obvious openings for this are now shut. End comment.) ¶7. (SBU) After having alluded loosely and dangerously to "voting" April 12, Etumba dropped any mention of it and insisted that each article be adopted by consensus, with objections or suggested changes being debated and with the self-evident rightness of a position or the clear determination of the co-chair or the Facilitation to block a recommendation eventually prevailing. In fact, on the key issue of JTCPS decision-making (where shifting formulas for super-majorities and blocking minorities had a few weeks ago been a make-or-break issue for CNDP),the working group's draft position -- that decisions be taken by consensus and that the Facilitation be asked to negotiate a compromise in the event of deadlock -- was assented to without a murmur. (Comment: The Facilitation may not fully realize what it has gotten itself into thereby, but that will be a matter for another day. End comment.) ¶8. (SBU) There remain a few items that are not entirely to the Facilitation's liking, but they are now reasonably hedged in by qualifiers. Some key items: -- Since who votes and who doesn't is no longer an issue, the full KINSHASA 00000359 002 OF 003 membership of the JTCPS now unequivocally includes the co-chairs, the permanent secretary, the Technical Harmonization Bureau and, importantly, the entities of the Facilitation (UN, EU, US, AU, IC/GLR -- the latter two have been notable by their absence). -- Decision-making is by consensus among full members. In case of "persistent" deadlock, the Facilitation is asked to arbitrate. -- The JTCPS has reaffirmed that it deliberates and acts autonomously with respect to the implementation of the Actes d'Engagement, but may not revisit the terms of the latter. -- Its main job is to set out and implement a calendar for achieving the stated goals of the Actes. A proposal to develop a full "work plan to implement" specific clauses but not others was beaten back. The danger that the JTCPS could become some kind of rump Parliament has receded. -- After much debate, members may call themselves "Commissaires" (which could mean either commissioners or commissars). Etumba was among those against, pointing out that a "Commissaire de Police" is equivalent in military rank only to a second lieutenant and that he prefers being a general, but the demand for the title was so great that it prevailed. Since, as many speakers pointed out, they will not be "commissaires de" anything at all ("commissaires de paix" was suggested at one point, which would have been a bit much, considering who they are),the internal rules will untranslatably grant them the protocol title of "Commissaire." -- Co-chairmanship by and presence of the Facilitation within the plenary and every subcommission, committee, subcommittee and working group has been recognized. The co-chairmanship must be present (in addition to a quorum) for a meeting to convene validly. -- The JTCPS is headquartered and convenes in Goma, but may decide to convene elsewhere upon a decision by the plenary. -- The provincial "Cadres de Concertation," the only vehicle in which real-world civic bodies (including traditional chiefs, the provincial assemblies, the judiciary, religious institutions and other civil-society groups) can interact with the JTCPS remain as originally envisaged and have not become, as suggested, yet another forum for the same ratios of armed groups-plus-GDRC to have yet more meetings. -- There will be no provision for automatic remuneration for "experts." -- A bizarre and overreaching provision by which the JTCPS members would have extra-legislatively awarded themselves some kind of blanket immunity from prosecution for their actions within the JTCPS, for membership in banned groups, and for any and all previous criminal activity has been twisted and scrubbed into an obscure and reasonably harmless clause invoking Constitutional free-speech provisions. Pending agreement on the final text, it probably has no legal force or standing, but it makes everybody feel better. -- A lengthy list of perks and allowances has been honed down to more than it should be but less than it could have been. Members are to receive: a salary; a fixed allowance for miscellaneous costs (housing, transportation, etc.); per diems for travel; reimbursement of medical expenses; a final lump-sum payment, of an amount to be determined (six months' pay had been modestly recommended). The Facilitation insisted on wording specifying that all of this must derive exclusively from GDRC sources. ¶9. (SBU) The internal rules took effect immediately upon adoption by the Plenary. Again looking slightly dazed, the group rose to its feet and gave itself a standing ovation. ¶10. (SBU) Comment: This (and many other lesser but still important points that were on the whole sensibly resolved) may not seem like much to show for ten or so days of mind-numbing working group discussions and two (very) long days of plenary debate, but they measure a long journey away from much that had been loony or dangerous. The principle of decision-making by consensus has been reaffirmed, and its importance demonstrated. Now, on to provincial structures (some more silly ideas to beat back there) and then on to the calendar that is the heart of the matter. ¶11. (SBU) Comment, continued: At one point during the lengthy discussion of the pseudo-amnesty, a CNDP rep stood up and said, "Well, in fact we should suspend all activity until the Amnesty Act has been passed." This was a provocation, not a serious proposal, KINSHASA 00000359 003 OF 003 but it highlights a real issue. The Amnesty Act is a specific undertaking of the Goma Actes, a solemn promise of the GDRC. The continued absence of any visible movement toward its passage leaves us with a land mine: any and all groups can use it as a pretext to pull out, or threaten to, whenever it suits them. End comment. GARVELINK