Is SADC breaching its own protocols with deployment in DR Congo?

-

 SADC’s Protocol on Politics, Defense and Security Cooperation has, among its objectives, to “prevent, contain and resolve inter-and intrastate conflict by peaceful means.” It is, also, in the objectives of the same protocol to, “consider enforcement action in accordance with international law and as a matter of last resort where peaceful means have failed.”



A January 2024 SADC Communique pertaining to deployment of a Mission in the DR Congo provides, among other things, that the deployment is in accordance with the principle of collective defense and collective action.

According to the Mutual Defense Pact, Any armed attack perpetrated against one of the State Parties shall be considered a threat to regional peace and security and shall be met with immediate collective action.

SADC’s Protocol on Politics, Defense and Security Cooperation has, among its objectives, to “prevent, contain and resolve inter-and intrastate conflict by peaceful means.” It is, also, in the objectives of the same protocol to, “consider enforcement action in accordance with international law and as a matter of last resort where peaceful means have failed.”

With the deployment to the DRC, SADC seems to have assumed:

First, that the insecurity in Eastern DR Congo is a direct attack, by a foreign country, on DR Congo. If SADC states believe there is a direct attack on DR Congo by another state, it is appropriate that they consider collective action to aid the victim state. But in the case of the DR Congo, where the main targeted armed group- M23- is a group of nationals who have become victims of state failure and have taken up arms to defend themselves and seek political inclusion as deserving citizens of DR Congo, isn’t SADC deployment in contravention of the objective to resolve intrastate conflict peacefully?

Even in the case of a possible attack from a foreign state- say Rwanda as DR Congo authorities have been claiming- isn’t SADC acting against itself by using military means without having tried,  first, a peaceful resolution to an inter-state conflict? Where Rwanda could have deployed its forces in DR Congo, would SADC not care to establish Rwanda’s reasons for such action? And, if SADC finds serious security concerns by a third-party state, say Rwanda, is it a SADC protocol to deploy in support of a member state even if that member state is involved in acts that breach or seek to breach the security and territorial sovereignty of a third-party state?

In the DR Congo-Rwanda case, Rwanda has reasonable grounds to deploy to DR Congo, particularly in areas occupied by FDLR from which it launches insurgent attacks on Rwanda. Has SADC ignored the grave security threats to Rwanda’s security posed by a closer collaboration between FDLR and the Congolese army? If SADC is aware of these threats yet does little to push DR Congo to withdraw its support to and collaboration with FDLR, does SADC not act in opposition to the objective to uphold regional security?

Second, SADC deployment to the DR Congo seems to have come from the assumption that the M23 claims are baseless and that the EAC did not act in the interests of the DRC, and the region, when it deployed a force to stand between warring parties with intent to provide a conducive environment for political dialogue- which the Tshisekedi government did not adhere to till it pushed the EAC force out.

Considering that SADC formerly deployed to the DR Congo to wipe out the M23, and really did wipe them out, albeit temporarily, what has SADC learned now that it will do to ensure it does not deploy to the DR Congo again to fight the same armed group it will have fought twice before?

SADC is deploying against a group of dissatisfied Congolese nationals without having made sufficient room for listening to their grievances and trying to address them. With this, SADC is acting against its objective to promote the development of democratic institutions and practices within the territories of State Parties and encourage the observance of universal human rights as provided for in the Charters and Conventions of the African Union and the United Nations.

The ultimate solution to the eastern DR Congo security question will incorporate state and non-state parties with concerns that need to be addressed. SADC should know this and should have learned something by now- first, from its return to the DR Congo, which means that its 2013 offensive mission- under the Force Intervention Brigade- didn’t yield the intended outcomes and, then, from the actions of the EAC which sought to put an end to the crisis. But like norm, “they have learned nothing and forgot everything-” not nothing this time.

 

 By: Steven Caleb Katurebe.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Government, Don’t Give Up Your Ability to Persuade

-
Image
  The public is not concerned about the idea of better pensions. When faced with public outrage over a decision, governments often find themselves at a crossroads: i. Stick to the decision and try to convince people why it is necessary, hoping logic and goodwill prevail; or ii. Listen to public concerns and consider adjusting the plan, even if it means walking it back. The recent announcement to double pension contributions from 6% to 12% starting January 2025 and to gradually increase them to 20% by 2030 has lit a fire of public debate. The Ministries of Finance, Public Service and Labour, along with the Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB), did step forward to explain the reasoning behind this move. They highlighted some quite solid goals: increasing pension payouts for retirees whose life expectancy has increased, providing capital to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises in the private sector, and boosting research and innovation funding. The leaders even did compare regional pensi...
Read more

On Processes and Outcomes: The Case of Taxation.

-
Image
  When the process of taxation is friendly to existing taxpayers, it creates room for the widening of the tax base as it favors and elicits enterprise. However, when the process of taxation is unfriendly to existing taxpayers, it limits room for the widening of the tax base. Note that it limits, it does not prevent When the reason for doing something is a future outcome whose success rate we cannot determine only in numbers, it is important to ensure that the way activities leading to the outcome are done is such that it elicits doing more of the thing(s) which lead to the desired outcome instead of things that give more of the desired outcome very fast.    Take the example of tax revenues and the practice of taxation.    Taxation is not an end in itself, rather it is a means to an end. While tax revenues are a finite goal, taxation is infinite- in that it exists forever, for as long as the nation within which it is conducted exists as an independent entity w...
Read more