Il semblerait qu'il part ce mardi à New York pour rendre compte de l'évolution de la médiation. Mais je crois, en revanche, qu'il va prendre des ordres. Espérons qu'il s'est rendu compte que ceux qu'il a reçus en décembre qui consistaient, selon toute vraissemblance, en l'appui des stratégies Louis-Michel-Kabilistes-Malumaluistes ayant échoué dans un passé même très récent, ne sont pas adéquats à la délicate mission de négocier la paix avec le CNDP. S'il y a quelqu'un qui sait que ce mouvement n'a rien d'une simple milice que l'on peut mener à coup de ménaces vides ou de temporisation élusive de Kinshasa, c'est bien Obasanjo. Il est conscient que les termes sous lesquels Kinshasa veut formuler le cessez-le-feu ne sont pas sérieux. Mais saura-t-il convaincre New York qu'il faut exercer une pression plus déterminée sur Kinshasa? Pourtant il faudra d'une manière ou d'une autre en finir avec une diplomatie qui risque de friser la médiocrité comme celle qui marque le leadership kinois. Nous le saurons sous peu. Entre temps, voici ce que l'on dit des négociations de Nairobi au pays de Louis Michel et Karel de Gutcht:
- RDC
Rébellion et délégation de Kinshasa discutent d'un cessez-le-feu
AFP
Mis en ligne le 12/01/2009 Ces pourparlers de Nairobi se poursuivent alors que la rébellion de Laurent Nkunda, le Congrès national pour la défense du peuple (CNDP), est en crise ouverte depuis que son chef d'état-major Bosco Ntaganda a annoncé le 5 janvier le limogeage pour "mauvais leadership" du leader des rebelles Laurent Nkunda.
Les délégations de la rébellion congolaise de Laurent Nkunda (CNDP) et du gouvernement de Kinshasa ont entamé lundi des discussions sur un accord commun de cessez-le-feu lors de leurs pourparlers sous l'égide de l'ONU à Nairobi, a-t-on appris lundi soir auprès de l'ONU. "Un ensemble de règles de procédure qui encadrera les pourparlers de fond sur la crise dans l'est de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC) a été adopté aujourd'hui (lundi), et les délégations ont immédiatement entamé les discussions sur une déclaration commune de cessation des hostilités qu'elles considèrent de façon sérieuse", précise un communiqué de la médiation.
L'ex-président nigérian et médiateur de l'ONU dans la crise en RDC, Olusegun Obasanjo, "a félicité les deux parties pour s'être désormais engagées dans des pourparlers directs pour parvenir à un véritable (accord) de cessation des hostilités, un aspect très important pour la question de la sécurité", ajoute le communiqué.
M. Obasanjo doit quitter Nairobi mardi pour se rendre à New York où il doit rendre compte de l'avancée des travaux de la médiation en fin de semaine devant le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, ajoute le communiqué.
En l'absence de M. Obasanjo, les négociations se dérouleront sous l'égide de son co-médiateur, l'ancien président tanzanien Benjamin Mkapa, selon la même source.
Ces pourparlers de Nairobi se poursuivent alors que la rébellion de Laurent Nkunda, le Congrès national pour la défense du peuple (CNDP), est en crise ouverte depuis que son chef d'état-major Bosco Ntaganda a annoncé le 5 janvier le limogeage pour "mauvais leadership" du leader des rebelles Laurent Nkunda. - Mais d'après le site des nouvelles de l'ONU, Obasanjo se rendra à New York ce jeudi comme vous pouvez le lire ici: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29518&Cr=democratic&Cr1=congo
3 comments:
When reading the UN article on DR Congo peace talks focus on joint cessation of hostilities, we feel like adding several questions and remarks.
First, the journalist seems to know what parties are in talks and why. But, let's see how his/her use of words and grammar are biased and one side minded.
On one side we have The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) without any other attribute or qualifying feature.
On the other side, we have a mainly Tutsi rebel group only and without naming it properly.
Is this fair from a referee meant to settle the dispute between two parties? not at all. So, let's indulge this as a kind of mediocrity since there is more information specified further about that group.
After naming those two parties, we read the reason why they are there in Nairobi. It is with the "clear purpose" of joint cessation of hostilities and to end the deadly conflict.
This is perfect, though nothing is said on the subject of their conflict, assuming they aren't playing Foot-Ball or any other game. Can we assume they know it already?
As first statement, issued by Obasanjo, we read this:
“A full package of ground rules that will guide the substantive talks in the Nairobi Dialogue on the crisis in eastern Congo was agreed today,”
With the word Dialogue in French, we don't learn so much about the subject of that dialog but the crisis as a kind of subject and its consequence.
Then, we read the next sentence:
“The delegations immediately moved to discuss a joint declaration of cessation of hostilities which they are seriously considering,” the statement added.
So, what real information this statement yields? Till there, nothing so far!
The next lines, representing the second half of the article, give more information on that mainly Tutsi rebel group to be CNDP (4th §).
More, we learn in the same 4th paragraph that those talks, begun in December, are seeking to bring an end to conflict ... 250,000 people on top of the 800,000 already displaced mainly in North Kivu... border of Rwanda and Uganda.
Here we are! Nothing is said about FARDC that produced those catastrophes but CNDP, Rwanda, Uganda and North Kivu that are associated with them in the same paragraph. A clear kind of amalgam.
In the next paragraph, we read:
“The Special Envoy commended both parties for now engaging in direct talks designed to achieve a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, a very important aspect of the security issue,” the statement noted.
So, whatever are the issues to settle, they have to stop and end hostilities without first looking why those hostilities are!!
Then, what if it's mainly the security issue that is raising hostilities?
Shan't we drop in some recursive process or a kind of endless revolving system?
The last paragraph tells us who is who with those UN or AU mediators.
Till there, I don't understand how this article is useful for our understanding supposing the Nairobi peace talks are on a good track.
Bagambiki
"So, whatever are the issues to settle, they have to stop and end hostilities without first looking why those hostilities are!!
Then, what if it's mainly the security issue that is raising hostilities?"
Oh my, oh my. Are you trying to justify hostilities, which are perpetrated by Mr Abattoir and his cohort? Be sure that Congolese wrath is slow in coming, but when it there none can stop it!
Justice will be done for our love ones.
Francoise
One of the questions of those talks is to know why those hostilities rose and what to do to end them. Then, while demanding or commending a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, the two parties will study how to mend that bad situation.
If there is enough assumption that security issues are the main cause of hostilities, as I see and according available historical data, then logically I should also assume that settling security prevails on cessation, actually suspension, of hostilities.
This is like a nail in an inflated tire. You can stop the air leak with a patch but it could be better if you remove first the nail. Isn't it?
The ceasefire is more or less generally applied for the moment though some threats are obvious on the bloody side of FARDC - FDLR - PARECO coalition.
This is why it's quite useless to ask CNDP to sign for a cessation of hostilities they decided already. However, the hostility issue remains if an acceptable security level is not granted through the whole country, including Kivu.
CNDP has adopted a defensive attitude while FARDC and its evil axis are aggressive.
The kind of hostilities we are experiencing in Kivu is a simple and direct consequence of a serious lack of security for people and for goods. Mostly, it's obvious that the FADC and common Police forces are the main threats. For sure Tutsi aren't the sole victims who also are demanding for security and Habea Corpus.
Bagambiki
Post a Comment