Goma Round-Up August 26 -- Plenary of

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KINSHASA 000702 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL MOPS KPKO CG SUBJECT: Goma Round-Up August 26 -- Plenary of the Joint Commission ¶1. (SBU) Summary: After five hours of meetings with the facilitation team, CNDP agreed to go forward with the concept of a working group on disengagement. Prior to the August 26 plenary of the Joint Commission, the team met Malu Malu and Etumba, who bought off on the plan and pushed it through the plenary. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) The international facilitation team (EU, UK, U.S., MONUC) had a four-hour meeting with the CNDP delegation in Goma (minus Rene Abandi) on August 25, hoping to get CNDP's agreement on the idea of a working group on disengagement, to be presented the following day at the plenary of the Joint Technical Commission on Peace and Security. CNDP's Bertrand Basimwa, with Abandi, had put forward the concept at a meeting with the team August 20. However, the larger CNDP delegation (seven of the eight) on August 25 raised a host of other issues and appeared to be hostile to taking any action on disengagement without a simultaneous resolution of all CNDP's claims. Privately, after this excruciating meeting, Bisimwa confided to poloff that the role of a negotiator was "extremely difficult. Remember, (LRA's) Koni killed two of his negotiators." The following day's plenary was shaping up to be a waste of time. ¶3. (SBU) After consultation with what he called his "base" (presumably Nkunda) Bisimwa called poloff on the morning of August 26 to say that CNDP had "moved in your direction." Another hour's meeting with the full delegation -- not free of difficult moments -- ended with the CNDP delegation's agreeing to the working group concept in full. The delegation opened with a seven-point position: (1) It accepted creation at the plenary of two ad hoc working groups on disengagement, the one in North Kivu composed of FARDC, CNDP, PARECO, with MONUC military and the international facilitation; (2) It wanted verification of the complete separation of PARECO and FDLR; (3) FARDC would have to accept pull-back of forces on the same terms as CNDP; (4) Members of the provincial "cellules" would have to be accepted as members of the working group; (5) The concept of a working group would need to be extended to other areas, e.g., brassage; (6) It agreed to a time limit of 15 days for the working group, after which the provincial structures would be established; and (7) The international facilitation would sign a memorandum certifying that it would put pressure on the government to take the CNDP's list of claims seriously. ¶4. (SBU) The facilitation team responded that it took serious note of CNDP's claims, but it would sign no memorandum with any single group: its job was facilitation. It saw no problem with CNDP's cellule members being in the working group but other parties would name whom they chose. It expected FARDC to be wholly involved in pull-back. Success of this working group could possibly lead to other such working groups being created. CNDP concluded that it was in "basic agreement" with the facilitation team, with the proviso that its full set of claims would need soon to be addressed. The facilitation team noted, on the basis of what it had been told by Abbe Malu Malu, that the government would ask for one "non-contact" armed group (i.e., other than PARECO) to be included in the working group, as a way to placate the Mai Mais. CNDP acquiesced. The team concluded by urging CNDP not to raise inflammatory issues outside the agenda of the plenary. ¶5. (SBU) The facilitation team had hoped for an extensive meeting with Malu Malu and Etumba prior to the plenary, but they arrived from Kinshasa only briefly before the scheduled start of the plenary. After a 20-minute exchange they described themselves as content with the working-group concept as presented by the facilitation team in a document with the following points: -- Objective: Make the plan of disengagement operational. The working group will submit its final report to the Commission within 15 days. -- Mandate: Identify front lines; define zones of disengagement of armed groups in contact and FARDC, and commit to reciprocal withdrawal from these zones; determine means of securing these zones (MONUC and DRC); establish rules of managing these zones and a system of sanctions for non-respect of these rules. -- Composition: Two technical groups for each province, with a limited number of members, to be accompanied by experts of their choice: (a) North Kivu: One member from each armed group in contact (CNDP, PARECO/FAP); one member from another group to be named by the Commission; one from FARDC; one from MONUC; one from the international facilitation. (b) South Kivu: One member from each armed group in contact (FRF, Mai Mai Yakutumba, Mai Mai Zabuloni, Mai Mai Kapopo); one from FARDC; one from MONUC; one from the international facilitation. -- Functioning: MONUC and FARDC will co-preside. An interim report will be submitted within eight days. KINSHASA 00000702 002 OF 002 ¶6. (SBU) The plenary opened with a plea from Malu Malu that it was time to get down to real work, in particular on the disengagement plan. The first agenda item for the plenary was the presentation (but not adoption, due to obvious CNDP objections) of the various plans that had been hammered out at the sub-commission level (mostly without CNDP and FRF participation),viz.: Disengagement, Integration (with an annex on DDR),Return of IDPs and Refugees, and Restoration of State Authority. With these presentations out of the way, Etumba opened discussion of what he called "an idea worked out by the co-chairmen of the Commission (i.e., Etumba and MONUC's newly-designated Eastern Coordinator, Alpha Sow) to ease concerns of all sides about the disengagement plan." Sow and Malu Malu joined in presenting the working-group concept as outlined above. Malu Malu noted that any armed groups which were not eligible for participation in this working group would make an important contribution, meanwhile, by taking "draconian steps" to reduce the claimed number of members (which have been wildly inflated). ¶7. (SBU) The concept was accepted by the plenary with no significant discussion. The plenary agreed that eligible parties would convene on the next morning, August 27, to get to work. The only major point raised by CNDP was a complaint about an incident that had occurred at Mgunga 1 IDP camp (east of Sake) on August 24. CNDP commissioner (and Goma delegation chairman) Kambasu Ngeve said that a group of IDPs who were trying to leave the camp to return to their homes in Ngungu (far southwest of the CNDP-controlled area) had been beaten by the police. This action, he said, appeared to be a "politicization" of the IDP-return issue. Etumba and Malu Malu, uninformed about the incident, said that any aggression against IDPs was completely unacceptable. They said that return of IDPs was the most important indicator of success of the Amani process, all the more reason, they noted, that it was essential to get down to serious work on the disengagement plan. Malu Malu said he envisioned that the pull-back would create not only areas of military disengagement but, effectively, "real humanitarian corridors." ¶8. (SBU) The other principal agenda point was an evaluation of the humanitarian situation in the Kivus, accomplished with eloquence and thoroughness by Mamba Leonard Mashako, co-chairman of the Commission's humanitarian sub-commission. He minced no words in reviewing the dire conditions prevailing in much of the Kivus to an audience representing groups largely responsible for bringing about, perpetrating, and deepening the suffering in the region. GARVELINK