Democratic Republic of the Congo: Vote on a Draft Resolution*
This afternoon (21 February), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution on the situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which has deteriorated significantly since January, as the Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) rebel group expanded its control over territory in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces. The draft text in blue demands the immediate cessation of further military advances by the M23 and calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. France, the penholder on the DRC, authored the draft resolution.
Background
The Security Council has met four times to discuss developments in eastern DRC, most recently on Wednesday (19 February). (For more information, see our 19 February What’s In Blue story.) At that meeting, many Council members expressed serious concerns about the human rights and humanitarian situation in the area. In this regard, an 18 February statement by Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ravina Shamdasani, described serious human rights violations and abuses—such as summary executions, including of children, and conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence in eastern DRC—following the rapid deterioration of the security situation.
Council members broadly agree on the need to address the root causes of this longstanding crisis and acknowledge the risk that it poses to the peace and stability of the wider Great Lakes region. They also support ongoing regional peace initiatives aimed at finding a lasting political solution and have welcomed the outcomes of meetings of the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) as well as other regional summits convened recently to address the recent escalation.
The most divisive issue among Council members has been referencing the role of external actors in the crisis. Some Council members—such as France, Slovenia, the UK, and the US—have been calling out Rwanda for its involvement in the conflict in eastern DRC since last year, while others had refrained from doing so. In light of the recent escalation of the security situation, Council dynamics have shifted significantly, with more members openly criticising Rwanda for its support to the M23 and urging the country to withdraw its forces from Congolese territory. However, the “A3 plus” grouping (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana) has maintained a more cautious approach. One exception to this was the group’s joint statement in a 28 January Council meeting, which for the first time urged the government of Rwanda to “withdraw its troops from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo without preconditions or delay” and to “cease its reported support for the M23″. However, members of the group have since reverted to a cautious approach, referring to AUPSC decisions and the outcomes of various regional summits, which do not explicitly reference Rwanda’s role.
The DRC has strongly urged the Security Council to take punitive measures against the M23 and Rwanda and expressed frustration over the Council’s inaction in the wake of the rebel group’s military advances in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces. On the other hand, Rwanda has rejected the growing international criticism of its involvement, emphasising the need to understand the origins of the conflict. It has also downplayed threats of punitive measures, calling instead for international support to the African-led mediation efforts.
On 20 February, the US imposed sanctions against two individuals in connection with the conflict in eastern DRC: James Kabarebe, Rwandan Minister of State for Regional Integration, and Lawrence Kanyuka Kingston, a senior member and spokesperson of the M23 and the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC), a politico-military coalition operating in eastern DRC, of which M23 is a major component. The DRC reportedly welcomed this decision and urged other countries to follow suit, while Rwanda denounced the decision as “unjustified and unfounded”, arguing that sanctions would not solve the conflict in eastern DRC.
Negotiations on the Draft Resolution
The negotiations on the draft text were protracted and difficult, primarily due to differences over references to Rwanda contained in the text proposed by France. The penholder circulated the initial draft of the resolution on 7 February and convened a first round of negotiations on 10 February. The penholder then circulated a revised draft on 12 February and placed it under silence until 13 February. Although France wanted to table a vote immediately, the “A3 plus” requested an extension until 14 February in order to take into consideration the outcome of an AUPSC meeting on the situation in eastern DRC, which was scheduled for that day. It seems that during his monthly luncheon with Council members on 7 February, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed support for holding the vote ahead of the AUPSC meeting in the hope that the resolution would send the right signals to the AUPSC. Although the penholder decided to extend the silence period until 2 pm on 13 February, the “A3 plus” broke silence.
China also broke silence over an operative paragraph which refers to due diligence concerning minerals originating from eastern DRC. It seems that China had concerns about references to due diligence guidelines of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). China is not a member of either the OECD or the EITI.
The penholder convened an informal consultation on Monday (17 February) to resolve outstanding issues. After the AUPSC issued a communiqué at the conclusion of its 14 February meeting, the A3 (Algeria, Sierra Leone, and Somalia) and Guyana sent separate comments on the draft. The A3 sought to align the language of the draft text with the AUPSC’s communiqué, which did not reference Rwanda explicitly. It seems that the A3 also proposed removing an operative paragraph that would have expressed the Council’s intention to impose sanctions against the M23 and those violating the 1533 DRC sanctions regime. Guyana apparently expressed support for the draft text but felt that it would be better to address the sanctions issue under the 1533 DRC sanctions regime and its designation criteria rather in the draft resolution.
It appears that several members—including Denmark, Greece, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Slovenia, the UK, and the US—expressed strong support for the draft resolution, emphasising the urgency of taking action given the evolving security dynamics on the ground. The penholder subsequently made further revisions to the text. To address China’s concerns, the penholder removed references to OECD due diligence guidelines and to the EITI. While accommodating some of the comments of the “A3 plus”, the penholder kept the sanctions language, which several Council members consider to be the most important operative paragraph in the draft. Additionally, the reference to Rwanda’s support and involvement in the DRC was maintained, along with calls for the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) to cease such support and withdraw from Congolese territory without preconditions. The revised text was placed under a second silence procedure until Wednesday afternoon (19 February).
The A3 broke silence again, however, expressing regret that their concerns on the draft text were not addressed. The penholder made further revisions to the text to achieve compromise, including by strengthening language regarding the DRC’s support to the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR), an ethnic Hutu armed group implicated in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsis. The revised draft, which was put in blue yesterday afternoon (20 February), urges the DRC and Rwanda to return to diplomatic talks without preconditions and implement what they have agreed within the framework of regional mediation processes regarding the neutralisation of the FDLR and Rwanda’s disengagement. It also underscores the need to resume political consultations under these processes to address the issue of armed groups, including the M23. The penholder also amended the sanctions language in an apparent attempt to accommodate Guyana’s concerns. The draft resolution in blue, therefore, expresses the Council’s readiness to consider additional measures against those who contribute to the continuation of the conflict in eastern DRC without specifying what those measures are.
__________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 21 February, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2773 on the situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The resolution strongly condemns the ongoing offensive by the Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) rebel group in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces, calling on the group to immediately cease hostilities, withdraw from areas it controls, and fully reverse the establishment of illegitimate parallel administrations. Additionally, the resolution calls on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) to cease support to the M23 and immediately withdraw from Congolese territory without preconditions. It also strongly urges the DRC and Rwanda to return to diplomatic talks, reaffirming the Council’s support to ongoing regional mediation efforts in this regard.
