32nd MEETING OF JMG TASK FORCE

UNCLAS KINSHASA 000648 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL MOPS KPKO CG SUBJECT: 32nd MEETING OF JMG TASK FORCE REF: (A) KINSHASA 647 (B) KINSHASA 630 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The 32nd meeting of the Joint Monitoring Group Task Force July 25 was unusually short at just over three hours. U.S. members of the International Facilitation were Nicholas Jenks and Geoffrey Parker. Jean-Michel Dumont of the EU chaired the meeting. Due to a misunderstanding, the sensitive issue regarding the differing definitions of the term combatant between the DRC and Rwanda had fallen off the agenda. Instead, participants received a brief update on the Amani Process by Congolese 8th Military Region commander General Mayala. This was followed by a security update from the MONUC chief of intelligence for the Eastern Division, Lieutenant Colonel Masri. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) Colonel Mamba of the DRC delegation began the meeting by expressing his discontent with the fact that the issue of defining the word "combatant" had fallen off the agenda. It had, in fact, been touched upon briefly during the 31st JMG meeting, at which the parties agreed to revisit it in depth at the following meeting. The issue is important as Rwandan authorities receiving demobilized fighters through MONUC's DDRRR process continue to apply a more restricted definition, leading to much smaller numbers of combatants than the DRC and MONUC believed had been demobilized. A UN legal expert was supposed to come to brief the Task Force but this did not happen, and the issue was put off to the following meeting. Rwanda had also been under the impression that the issue would be addressed. Bernard Sexe of the French embassy, who had presided over the last meeting, apologized and said he was partly to blame for the unintended omission. ¶3. (SBU) The meeting then moved to a basic and generic briefing on the Amani process from General Mayala. It included a brief history, a listing of the relevant legal documents and decrees, and the current status of the Amani structures. The Rwandan delegation said it was all interesting but that they wanted to know what was being done about the FDLR. (Note: It is not clear why the Rwandans expected to hear about actions against the FDLR in a briefing on the Amani process. End note.) Nevertheless, the Congolese delegation patiently explained how the Amani process addressed the issue of Congolese armed groups, while dealing with the FDLR was the mission of the Nairobi process. The Congolese then also explained that while eight battalions had been deployed to address the FDLR problem, there were several brigades in both Kivus that were also tackling the issue, capturing FDLR deserters and restoring security for commercial activity. ¶4. (SBU) The next briefing was given by MONUC's chief of intelligence on the current security situation in North Kivu, the substance of which was reported ref A. ¶5. (SBU) For the following meeting the Task Force decided to attend a demobilization ceremony for FDLR/RUD fighters along with their families in the North Kivu town of Kasiki (ref B). The idea was raised by Dumont who had personally received an invitation (for the entire Task Force) by the Congolese Foreign Minister. The Foreign Ministry had also sent a high-level invitation to Kigali to ask someone from Rwanda to attend in addition to the normal Rwandan delegation at the Task Force. Dumont also mentioned that the Congolese Foreign Minister attributed the GDRC's ability to convince RUD fighters to disarm in large part to the arrest of FDLR executive secretary Calixte Mbarushimana in Germany. ¶6. (SBU) Comment: This meeting was very short - mainly because the Task Force was given two briefings with short Q&A sessions. Nothing too sensitive was placed on the table for discussion, though it was clear the "defining a combatant" issue needs to be addressed at the earliest opportunity. End comment. GARVELINK