Western Powers Press DRC for Concrete Plan to Neutralise FDLR

The United States and European allies have pressed the Democratic Republic of Congo to urgently produce an operational plan and realistic timeline for neutralising the FDLR, weighing into an escalating dispute between Kinshasa and Kigali over whether a newly signed demobilisation protocol meets commitments under the Washington peace process.

The International Contact Group (ICG) for the Great Lakes said it had taken note of the Congolese government’s July 28 announcement that a faction of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR-FOCA) had formally accepted and signed a protocol on disarmament, demobilisation and cantonment.

But the group said Kinshasa must now demonstrate how the agreement would actually deliver the neutralisation of the Rwandan armed group.

“The ICG urges the Congolese authorities to promptly develop an operational plan and a realistic timeline to implement an effective FDLR neutralization,” the group said.

The statement was issued by the United States, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. France chairs the group.

The intervention follows a sharp public confrontation between Rwanda and the DRC over the protocol, with Kigali accusing Kinshasa of attempting to substitute negotiations with the FDLR for its obligation to neutralise the group.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe recently dismissed the protocol and accused Kinshasa of manipulating the Washington peace framework.

“The signature of this so-called protocol between the father (the Congolese government), the son (FDLR) and the evil spirit (genocide ideology) is in no way compliant with the Washington Accords,” Nduhungirehe said.

He argued that the FDLR was not a party to the Washington agreement but the subject of security provisions requiring its neutralisation.

“This is a crude manipulation by Kinshasa and its lackeys, a delaying tactic by the DRC to try to wriggle out of its primary security obligation,” he said.

According to Nduhungirehe, the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and its Operational Order require the Congolese government to neutralise the FDLR within a 90-day implementation period rather than negotiate a separate arrangement with the militia.

He further alleged that FDLR elements had been integrated into the Congolese army and accused Kinshasa of facilitating the political organisation of individuals linked to the group, naming Jean-Luc Habyarimana, Fabien Singaye, Thomas Nahimana and Thadée Kwitonda.

“The media posturing of this malevolent trinity is a non-event,” Nduhungirehe said.

Kinshasa has pushed back strongly.

Congolese government spokesman Patrick Muyaya said the FDLR’s willingness to voluntarily disarm demonstrated that the DRC was implementing its commitments and argued that neutralisation should not automatically mean killing combatants who have chosen to abandon armed struggle.

“One cannot use force against those who have voluntarily chosen the path of peace in front of witnesses,” Muyaya said.

“Neutralization does not mean killing,” he added, challenging Kigali to accept the eventual return of disarmed FDLR members to Rwanda.

“If Rwanda truly wants the return of peace in application of the Washington agreement, it should seize the outstretched hand of its own citizens, FDLR,” Muyaya said.

The ICG statement appeared to put additional pressure on Kinshasa while stopping short of rejecting the protocol outright.

It said implementation must comply with the Concept of Operations on the Disengagement of Forces and Lifting of Defensive Measures of Rwanda and commitments contained in the Washington agreements.

Protocol

The group also called on the Congolese government to clarify mechanisms contained in the protocol for combating impunity and to involve the United Nations peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, as a key implementation partner.

Crucially, the ICG warned Kinshasa against continued military cooperation with the militia.

“Any colocation or operational collaboration with elements of the FDLR is fundamentally at odds with the commitments made in the Washington Accords,” it said.

That issue lies at the heart of Rwanda’s security argument. Kigali says the neutralisation of the FDLR is its foremost security concern and a prerequisite for lifting defensive measures.

Kinshasa, however, accuses Rwanda of using the FDLR’s continued presence in eastern Congo as justification for military intervention and support for the AFC/M23 rebellion. Rwanda denies allegations that its actions amount to aggression against the DRC.

The FDLR was established by Rwandan Hutu extremists, including individuals linked to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, who fled into what was then Zaire following the genocide and the subsequent takeover of Rwanda by the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

The dispute over what constitutes the group’s “neutralisation” has consequently become one of the most difficult elements of implementing the Washington peace framework.

The ICG said it was ready to welcome concrete steps by either Rwanda or the DRC and urged parties to the Washington Accords and the Doha Framework, as well as mediators including the African Union, to continue implementing their commitments.

It also reminded the parties of their obligation to protect civilians and respect the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, calling for immediate de-escalation.

Separately, the group welcomed the prisoner exchange agreement between the Congolese government and AFC/M23 as an important confidence-building measure.

It praised the recent International Committee of the Red Cross-facilitated transfer of individuals released by Congolese authorities to AFC/M23 as “a step in the right direction.”