Painting by Cheri Samba

Lokuta eyaka na ascenseur, kasi vérité eyei na escalier mpe ekomi. Lies come up in the elevator; the truth takes the stairs but gets here eventually. - Koffi Olomide

Ésthetique eboma vélo. Aesthetics will kill a bicycle. - Felix Wazekwa

Sunday, December 30, 2012

A UN Special Envoy for the Great Lakes: Can the UN absorb the regional process?

Following the fall of Goma to the M23 and the lack of progress in the Kampala talks, the United Nations has inched closer to naming a special envoy in order to jumpstart a larger, more serious peace process. While this could constitute a major shift in international engagement with the Congolese conflict, there are many questions and doubts remaining.

According to a UN official,  it is very likely that the Secretary General will name a special envoy in the coming weeks. In addition, Ban Ki-Moon is trying to use his offices to broker a new peace process, one that would involve all concerned countries in the region and that would tackle some of the root causes, including Congolese army and governance reform and outside intervention in the Kivus.

The ball got rolling in New York after Ban sent Susana Malcorra, the head of the UN's Executive Office, to the Congo in November to meet with President Kabila and to visit the Kivus. Following the fall of Goma––and the criticism of UN failure to stem the M23 advance on the city––members of the Security Council were receptive to the idea of a new approach.

While details are still being discussed in New York, this approach seems to involve creating a framework for talks that would include Rwanda, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Uganda, Burundi, and Angola, with the UN special envoy as the facilitator/mediator. The issues on the table could include political reforms in the Congo––such as decentralization, land conflicts, and security sector reform––as well as stabilizing the Kivus.

At the same time, the UN is considering absorbing the proposed Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) force that is supposed to be deployed under a Tanzanian command. This force could then form a special intervention brigade within MONUSCO, with a more robust mandate and rules of engagement to address the criticism of military weakness levied against the mission.

But many questions remain. Within this regional process, how could the Congolese government credibly commit to the very political reforms it has resisted? Kabila is still very reluctant to allow the UN to meddle in Congolese internal affairs and has been unable to carry out the necessary reforms. How would regional talks change this? (See my previous post on how I think the UN needs to be re-politicized to address some of the challenges). Distrust is deep in the region and impediments to change in Kinshasa, Goma and Kigali are formidable. Creating a process without an outside body to implement the agreement could just result in more talk.

How would such a process ensure that Rwanda and Uganda refrain from backing armed groups in the Congo, especially since they both deny such meddling? True, having boots on the ground from Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Malawi (other still to come...) is in itself a deterrent, a way of making sure these countries are invested politically as well as militarily. But it is difficult to imagine this SADC force waging risky counterinsurgency operations against the M23 or FDLR, and the more the Congolese army and government appear inept, the more other countries might turn a blind eye to foreign support to the M23.

The Kivus are the graveyard of peace processes––there have been many in recent years, ranging from the mixage arrangement of 2007 to the Goma peace conference of 2008 and the Ihusi Agreement of 2009. The temptation for the Security Council is to concoct another short-term fix, a mixture of beefing up the military approach and regional talks. But neither is likely to address the deep-rooted challenges the region is facing, perhaps foremost among which are Kinshasa's reluctance/inability to reform its institutions and Kigali's interference in the eastern DRC. Tackling those issues will require a much greater political engagement from the UN Security Council than we have seen in the past.


Rich said...

Jason –

Many thanks for another insightful piece; as always.

I like the way your present the situation but I was left on my hunger when you mentioned “root causes” or indeed “deep rooted challenges in the region” without actually expanding a bit more on what they are (even a bullet-points summary).

My concern with not explaining the so called root causes is that we don’t know if all the actors/entities perceive or define them “root causes” and “deep-rooted challenges” in the same way. I’m aware there has been an effort starting by listing negative forces and M23 has recently been defined as such so one can only expect this group has not gunned its way to becoming a non-negative force. Otherwise are we ever going to achieve impunity? Does Rwanda need thugs to do its biddings in the DRC? Such policy is very dangerous for any genuine peace prospect in the region, to say the least.

Among a few other facts you mentioned as main causes for concern/criticism are the DRC military weaknesses and MONUSCO’s mission. If these criticisms are enough to justify the on-going conflict, the question I’m asking is, why on earth has the other eight out of the nine borders the DRC shares with its neighbouring countries have not produced much desolation and human disaters as we are witnessing in East-DRC and in particular the Kivus?

For this reason, I think and this is my opinion, the overall management of the post-genocide in Rwanda, its overflow and consequences on the DRC are part of the root causes that need to be genuinely assessed. Here I’m referring to the fact that there needs to be a push for the regime in Rwanda to allow more space if not dialogue with the opposition there (here I mean non-genocidaire opposition although, in Rwanda, there seems to be no clear-cut between being an opponent and supporting the genocidaire’s ideology).

The other problem is the fact that Rwanda has been allowed to do the US and British biddings in the region, in terms of peace keeping missions (Darfur, Somalia etc.) has compromised the ability for the UN and indeed the US or the Brits to be upfront with the regime every time it becomes evident that Rwanda has violated the UNSC sanctions regime. We’ve all seen Rwanda and Uganda using their role for peacekeeping missions to blackmail the UN every time they were accused of violating the UNSC sanctions regime in the DRC. The UN should not allow this blackmail to go on by making it clear, from the outset, that any country participating in peace keeping operations should not use its position to blackmail the UN should there be accusations of violating UNSC sanctions regime. This naivety from the international community is also part of the root causes since it sets an unprecedented case of conflict of interests.

To finish, I’d say, it’ll be better to see all actors and entities start by agreeing on the definition of what are the root causes to the conflict before they try to address them and here the role and skills of human right organisations as well as the civil society should be part of the mix. It wouldn’t make any sense at all to try and address something (deep rooted causes) you have not defined in the same way and so far it seems like every one is eluding this crucial question.


Sowhat? said...

I agree with Rich's point of view. Now it is time to adress this situation in a deeper way. Deep calls upon deep. By uprooting these deep-rooted challenges, the hope of a solution to the region may then be real.

Meanwhile, thank you Jason for the efforts you are making to explain the congolese situation to the international community.

Anonymous said...

Oh, DRC. The international community should just aim at helping the country to break into governable pieces, at least 7 republics. Hopefully this can bring us peace and prosperity, like other people. For now, we live in a massive territory but no coherent country. The UN should stop to pretend that DRC is a real thing ... It's just an imaginary country from Europeans. We should not abide by 19th century backward border demarcations.

Unknown said...

The roots of instability in E-DRC is French’s Operation turquoise and subsequent attempt to create a state within the state of former Zaire by France.
Historical facts:
1. In 1994, 2 million Hutu fled to neighboring countries as follow:
- 1 million in Zaire(DRC)
- 900,000 in Tanzania
- 200,000 in Burundi
- +/- 50000 in Uganda
2. The last 3 handled the refugees according to international laws:disarm the armed ones, register the refugees and hand them over to UNHCR.
3. Zaire acted in violation of international laws.Why did Mobutu decide so and why the IC failed to act back then? Here comes the FRENCH CONNECTION.
4. France organized “Operation turquoise” to exfiltrate their proteges and their armed forces;more than 50,000 military men (Ex-FAR) and 200,000 interahamwe militia were allowed safe passage into Kivus; Once in Zaire, the government of Mobutu gave them a save heaven with total impunity, and France threw in all its weight to stop any condemnation of Zaire’s government. That is when Kinshasa government officially handed over Kivu’s sovereignty to foreign armed forces.
5. In 1996, all Rwanda neighbors, except Zaire, repatriated refugees back to Rwanda.In less than a month, 1 million refugees come back from Tanzania, Burundi and Uganda.
6. Meanwhile Ex-FAR/ interahamwe in Zaire opted for an armed invasion of Rwanda with the backing of Mobutu’s government.Arms continued to be supplied to Ex-Far/Interahamwe through French military networks.
7. Subsequently Rwanda invaded Zaire in 1996.Ex-FAR/interahamwe changed into many acronyms up to the current one FDLR.
France got away with it because they have a clearly defined African policy.French know what are their objectives in Africa. The French pressure groups (Human rights activists and journalists) work hand in hands with the ruling elite to implement the state policies.
USA and UK have no African policies, except the trio slogan of promotion of democracy, human rights and international aid. That is why Africa is the only region of the globe where US and UK foreign policies are dictated by human rights activists and humanitarian organizations.
In brief,the root causes of instability in DRC are :
- France’s interference in great lakes region with the objective to destabilize Rwanda. Rwanda’s role in Kivus has consistently been a reaction to threats posed by France. France, a nuclear power, a member of UN Security Council, in possession of vast military, political and economic powers had vowed to “revenge “the humiliating defeat they faced 20 years ago in the hands of a small, defenseless( in human point of view) people of Rwanda.
- Inexistence of effective State control in Kivus. This is a consequence, not of Rwanda interventions, but of irresponsible decisions taken by the successive governments of Zaire and DRC to allow in and provide support to a whole foreign Army (FAR) and their proxy militias.
The much debated economic and ethnic connections are just distractions from the above stated core issues. Let me demonstrate this:
1. Rwanda made 128 Mil Us$ from mining exports in 2012. On the other hand, Rwanda received 2 Billion Us$ of international aid. Let’s use the hypothesis that all the 180 million Us$ came from Kivu’s mines (which is far from the truth); now why should Rwanda risk losing more than 10 times the money they are getting from donors?It is an absurdity.
2. Rwanda leaves in peace with all its neighbors,except one. Banyarwanda leave in Uganda, Tanzania, and Hutu and Tutsi forms almost the entirety of Burundi society. In Uganda 20% of the population are Rwandophones. Why Rwanda then doesn't have the same expansionist policies towards those countries? This is also absurdity.

Unknown said...

@Gisa Rebero.
* It is time for Africans to take responsibility for their failures and stop blaming the West. Colonialism, Imperialism, Exploitation: those are tired excuses from African dictators.

* The FDLR or M23 do not exist because of France or the US, etc. They exist because of the political problems in their respective countries. For FDLR, the root of the problem is in Rwanda, including repression ( Kagame just made the list of the Foreign Policy Magazine most repressive leaders in the World, just behind Bashir Al -Assad and Kim Jong Un, same in Time Magazine, and several international medias). Rwanda government can continue to use the 1994 excuse, but this is a tired argument. Kids who left Rwanda in 1994 on their mother's back now form the bulk of FDLR and Other Rwandan rebels and some rebels were not long ago RPF members.

* The international community must push Rwandan Government to find a political solution to its FDLR problem, instead of creating militia in the DRC. Why is DRC government asked to negotiate with the Congolese militia/rebels and Rwandan government is not asked to do it? Why Karzai of Afganistan is asked to negotiate with Talibans? Why Bozize with his rebels? and so on.
No one is asking Rwandan Paul Kagame to talk to FDLR leaders accused of crimes. Let the International community put conditions on FDLR and other Rwandan rebels to put forward leaders not accused of genocide and then get the Rwandan Government to sit with these leaders. WIthin a year, there won't be Rwandan rebels in DRC or M23 rebels.
* It is of common knowledge that some Rwandan rebels tried to disarm and go home peacefully during the Rome, Kisangani and Kasiki process in 2008-2009, but Rwandan Defense Forces attacked the camps and massacred disarmed combatants and their dependents.
*Whoever advises Paul Kagame, that is where they should lead him, instead of always pushing propaganda, denials, and other unproductive approaches.
So, let us spare ourselves of propaganda here!


congo man said...

I agree with you and Rich .It's time for the international Community to practice what it preaches. Justice has to be given to all including the thousands of political prisoners that are being tortured and slaughtered inside RWANDA's killing chambers. The IC shall also pressure PAUL KAGAME to start negotiating with the opposition including the FDLR form a government of national Unity that will pave the way for the democratic changes that the majority of Rwandans (90%) are asking for.pressure shall also be on PAUL KAGAME his Junta to free Victoire INGABIRE and her colleagues and allow opposition activists to operate freely without the risks of being beheaded or sent to KIGALI's death chambers.this double standard by the IC has to stop .you can't continue to preach democracy and human writes to the Congoles wile at the same time you Continue to support and finance a ruthless and bloody dictatorship in Rwanda .PAUL KAGAME and his Junta are the only obstacle to peace and development in the Great lakes and the entire Central and East African region .just like the eritrean supported ALSHABAB terrorists are being crushed military in Somalia,the Rwandan supporterd m23 terrorists have to also be militarily crushed and It's leadership including JAMES KABAREBE has to be transferred to the ICC to face justice for the war crimes that they have been committing in Goma and elsewhere in the Great lakes.

Unknown said...

@Unknown and congo man,
Do you dispute any of the historical facts I mentioned? If yes, counter them with facts and not just empty talks.
I can see Congolese sympathizers of FDLR are in full gear here on Congo siasa. That is your right. But let us remember that FDLR has caused more damages to your mothers, fathers, sons and daughters than M23, Kony's LRA and all armed groups combined together. Also if the group calls itself a Rwanda rebel group, why is it operating within Congo and not Rwanda?

Let me deconstruct your arguments:
* Africa, and Rwanda in particular, has already taken responsibility for its own destiny. I do not remember of any other African nation, which has shown resilience on such unprecedented external pressure to influence its internal and external policies. This started right after 1994 genocide.
* The genocide will forever be the motivation and reference for Rwandans, when they plan their future.If you think you are tired of it, it is your right; but for generations to come, do not expect us to be silenced by any other form of threats. Even nuclear fission won't deter Rwandans, let alone branding the words ICC, war crimes, sanctions...
France has no former colony in the great lakes. But France has a very hostile policies towards Rwanda since 1994;unfortunately DRC territory is serving as a battle ground of this war on Rwanda.
* Rwanda has successful implemented a reconciliation policy; few may dispute the success of this path. Many former FDLR commanders, who are not accused of crimes, currently serve in the RDF.

congo man said...

@ giza Roberto
Yes I agree with you .the failure of MOBUTU to protect our boaders led to the 1994 Rwandan inter-ethnic killings (genocide)to spill over the boader to the DRC. The French and Americans....(international Community) failure to support the repatriation of Rwandan refugees from eastern Congo ,both Hutus and tutsis some of whom took part in those 1994 inter ethnic killings .the international Community's failure to pressure the Rwanda government and the opposition to start real peace talk and instead taking sides with PAUL KAGAME and his Junta has led to this human disaster that we are facing in Eastern Congo . This failure by the international Community has led the Rwanda regime to invade the DRC 3 times now and this invasions has now led to the death of 5 millions inocent Congoles man,women and Children who had nothing to do with the 1994 inter ethnic Rwandan killings( genocide). 5 times more people have died in the CONGO's HOLAUCOST than those killed in Rwandas genocide . RWANDA a Country that produces no minerals and has no mining companies his now reporting a $ 128 millions a year in mining revenue.and many more bellions are being hidden by PAUL KAGAME and the war criminals who run that dictatorship(RWANDA )in their offshore bank accounts wile millions of people are starving in the great lakes region of the DRC where those minerals are being plunderd by Rwanda and its m23 terrorists etc... The international Community shall now push the Rwandans to start real reconciliation a real peace talk .this can no longer be left out of any peace plan for the Great lakes.

Rich said...

James, sowhat & congo man –

I agree with most of the points you have made and thanks for bringing up some of the issues many tend to overlook when mentioning “deep rooted causes” without even scratching the surface of what their understanding or definition of them are!

@Gisa Rebero –

Glad to see that you have been honest enough to admit the ill doing of your regime in DRC since there seems to be threats.
You are now excelling in red herring rather than addressing the questions asked here. You just said, quote, “Do you dispute any of the historical facts I mentioned?”

Please correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of your point is as follows. You said the root cause is the fact that France is eager to get a revenge on RPF, so they are using the DRC to threaten the regime in rwanda and hence allow the FDLR to stay in DRC until they are ready to attack Rwanda or reedit the genocide.

Let me bring the following to your attention:

1. I’d like to say the millions of my fellow Congolese should not be made to pay for a dispute between france and Rwanda. The genocide was a Rwandan affair if the French participated in some ways I’m sure kagame knows where on the map this country is or indeed who are the French who did that and should confront them where they are and not imposing an injust war through his thugs in the Kivu.

2. You argument seems weak due to the fact that the DRC has allowed Rwanda more actions to rid itself from any genocidaires on DRC soil. A few facts to demonstrate it:

With the DRC gvt blessing and ignoring Congolese sovereignty you had boots on the ground at wish to deal with FDLR or genocidaires threats:
1996-1998 james kabarebe was head of the Army in the DRC why didn’t he finish the job?

1998-2003 you had RCD controlling E-DRC why didn’t they finish the job?

2003-2009 you had J Mutebusi and L Nkunda why didn’t they finish the job?

2009-2012 you had various special task forces in E-DRC to deal with the very threat why didn’t they finish the job?

2012 to now you have M23 and we heard in December that FDLR “attacked” Rwanda from positions held by M23.

Adding to that is the fact that fdlr have never managed to attack Rwanda since many years now (less the unproven cases) quite to the contrary fdlr are being recycled by your regime to destabilise the DRC.

To finish I have 3 explanations to what you present as “root causes”:

You don’t want and never wanted to finish the job

Your elements (starting from kabarebe) have registered a bloody failure in accomplishing their mission

There is no threat and fdlr is just an excuse to maintain your deadly presence of E-DRC.

As for the so called progress made by your regime, as long as they dictatorship based, they are not sustainable in the long run. Ask Qaddafi or Mubarak!


Unknown said...

@Gisa Rebero
1. "On the other hand, Rwanda received 2 Billion Us$ of international aid".
You must be more specific. Financial support to Rwanda represents about 40% of it's annual budget. This budget was about 1.7 billion Us$ in 2011/2012 and estimated to be 1.9 billion Us$ in 2012/2013. At best, Western countries support would amount to 800 million Us$ each year; ceratinly not the 2 billion Us$ you mentioned ! Therefore, 180 million Us$ (10% of annual budget) worth of mining exports would be a significant amount for a developing country.
2."Why Rwanda then doesn't have the same expansionist policies towards those countries?"
The countries you mentioned have an army to defend their sovereignty whereas the DRC has none....
Another example, Rwandan officials have been calling for a revisitation of colonial frontiers. Interestingly, they always mention that most of today's Kivu was part of a Rwandan kingdom before colonial powers went to Africa. They hardly ever mention that part of today's Uganda was also part of the same kingdom. To me, this means that Rwanda is convinced that they can more easily achieve their aims in DRC than in other countries.
I suppose Ugandans and Rwandans fought in Kisangani in 2000 for the privilege of capturing the maximum number of gold/diamonds.....oops I meant negative forces.

Kahem said...

This is an "economic war"... Historical facts are visible part of iceberg. Keeping E-DRC instable is serving this cause.

blaise said...

@ Patrick Fiombea
It's interesting to noticed that the mwami who is credited for expanding the Rwanda Kingdom was Kigeri IV Rwabugiri who died in 1895.
The Berlin conference was held in 1885.
I still fail to understand how a fairly recent expansion is referred nowadays as "historic Rwanda" or traditional lands of Rwandans.
Beside,the kingdom of Buganda had some control of part of what is Rwanda today.
All those revisions are just of bad taste. People are dying because of stupid ideologies are developed.

Unknown said...

Couldn't agree more with you.
Bottom line is some people would justify their actions with anything: twisted facts, biaised interpretations of historical events, etc. Nobody would urge Mexico to claim part of today's California, Texas or New Mexico as they were part of a larger Mexican territory in the 19th century....unless you want current Mexico to be wiped out of the face of the earth; which comes back to a more important point: a country needs a strong, organised army to defend itself and its interest.

Unknown said...

My two cent, hopefully Kabila and the congolese political class will learn from all of these that good governance, the rule of law and a strong regularly paid army matter... Thak Jason for keeping your focus on DR Congo, this country with its vast natural resources is worthy of attention (at least China and people like you understand this). Thanks.

Unknown said...

It is always amazing to see people referring to some dubious history to justify their criminal actions. Now hold up your MAPS, and draw the “historic territories” of ancient Kongo Empire(DR Congo, Angola, Namibia, Congo-Brazza…), Lunda Empire(DR Congo, Congo-Brazza, Angola, Namibia…), Teke-Umbu Empire (DR Congo, Congo-Brazza, Gabon,CAR, Togo, Eq-Guinea, Cameroon, Nigeria…), Lunda empire (DR Congo, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania…). Shall we go to the Zulus (SA, Zimbabwe,Zambia,DR Congo, Mozambique...). Or should we speak of the most illustrious African Empire, the Mali with the greatest Africa Emperor, “king of kings” Kanka Musa (more we can’t count).

The point is, you Kagamist lot live in a Kagamist ivory tower. You think what your king Kagame tells you is the "reality" for the rest of the world. Look, somebody please enlighten ALL of US about this mysterious Tutsi Kingdom in Rwanda , and importantly what it has brought to human kind as UNIVERSAL HERITAGE (artifact and technology as the empires mentioned above have). And I will tell you what Congolese and other African empires have UNQUESTIONABLY.

Look, you Kagamist people have lost on this one; you thought it was going to be a “quickie”. Lesson is: human history is always rather a “prose” and not a ”poem” unfortunately. It is one thing to campaign for Kivus’ secession in YOUR media like Herman Cohen ,Georgianne Nienaber or any other bastard…
. Well come to the Kivus and state your case. Of all Congolese, Kivutians are the “most Congolese” historically, socio-consciously and practically. Just see how all “Mai Mai” acronyms always have something to do with either “sovereignty”, “defense” or “protection” of Congo or Congolese people.

As the Kivutian Vital Kamhere puts it, if anything, this crisis has proven “once and for all to the world” that Congo is ONE and INDIVISIBLE. STOP HARASSING US (IMF or Rwandan Kaberuka (ADB)) please!

Congo is ETERNAl. We are and shall prevail!


Unknown said...

“ In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind to manipulate, deny, or distort reality (through processes including, but not limited to, Repression, Identification, or Rationalization), and to maintain a socially acceptable self-image or self-schema. “
The balkanization theory is used when Congolese nationalists lack substantial points in this debate.
May be folks are trying to reject a certain reality deeply rooted in your sub-conscience.
Nowhere Rwanda have made a territorial claim on any part of DDR Congo except the usual” so and so said that “. There are international mechanisms in place for such claims. The only case opposing Rwanda to DR Congo in the international court of Justice (ICJ) was filed by the former. There are hundreds of official declarations and communiqués from Rwanda government and officials, concerning the DR Congo conflicts.
Another diversion is the 5 million. If we use the same method to calculate death toll as used in DR Congo, then the conflicts in Angola, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, could reach hundreds of millions. When they say 60,000 people were killed in Syria, 300,000 in Iraq, they mean these are direct victims of war (including collateral deaths of civilians).
Researchers have disputed the much publicized death toll in DRC. Among them 2 Belgians demographists scientifically demonstrated the toll was overestimated. They put the death toll at around 200,000 to 400,000:
“We have indisputably shown the demographic impossibility of a death toll as high as several million people only due to the direct and indirect consequences of unrest during the 1998-2004 periods. Our analysis used comparisons between the reconstructed actual population of the country and an hypothetic reconstruction of the same population, but where mortality did no more increase (as it actually did), considering that the excess number of deaths between both reconstructions would be imputed to unrest, at least in the affected provinces. We even took a chance to overestimate this mortality, by beginning in 1992 – instead of 1998 – the hypothetic period of steady mortality. As a result, the correct death toll is around 200,000 victims attributable to wars (calculated from a robust estimate of 400,000 excess deaths amongst the Congolese population of the whole country).
After several productive discussions with experts in demography or in epidemiology, we got from Mrs Prof. D. G. Sapir (Research Centre in Epidemiology of Disasters, Catholic University of Louvain) the idea to test two additional hypotheses. The results shown below strongly suggest that DRC probably lost millions of people during the last two decades of the century. BUT THESE DEATHS SHOULD PRIMARILY BE IMPUTED TO THE LONG DECAY OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION OF ZAIRE DURING MOST OF THE MARSHAL MOBUTU'S REGIME AND NOT MUCH TO THE INVASION OF DRC BY RWANDAN AND UGANDAN TROOPS – THERE ARE ENOUGH OTHER GOOD REASONS TO BLAME IT. “
Find the full report here:
The Canadian 2009’s Human Security Report also disputed the DRC death toll and one quote read:
“Critical analysis of the IRC’s data and methodology presented suggests that a number of the key assumptions made by the organization’s researchers are highly questionable and that the claim that 5.4 million Congolese have died because of the war cannot be sustained… The surveys in 2000 and 2001 were compromised by questionable methodological assumptions. And, while they clearly reveal very high levels of mortality in parts of the eastern region of the DRC, we argue that the excess death estimates they produced should be rejected.”
Let's discuss DRC crisis with verifiable facts and not by calling emotional responses based on manipulated truth.

Unknown said...

1.I mentioned very specific, verifiable information about budget and western aid to did not answer
2. In October 1996, Pasteur Bizimungu called for a new Berlin COnference (Berlin II) to revisit colonial frontiers in the Great Lakes region
"Let's discuss DRC crisis with verifiable facts and not by calling emotional responses based on manipulated truth"....indeed !!
This means you should be honest enough to admit when you are wrong and correct your stance and not call on Freud for help. Who will be next ? Thomas Sankara

Unknown said...

For those who disputed the growing mobilization power of M23, I challenge you to explain the following:
* Roger Lumbala officially joined M23 and M23 spokesman talked of 5 more big names in DRC political class to be announced soon.

* Political parties, with UDPS en tete, rejected the mobilization call from Kabila; they instead call for a broader national dialogue (which include M23 as well), to discuss root causes of instability in DRC, starting with the rigged 2011 elections. Clearly what M23 has been asking for; so it is fair to state that M23 has a broader base of objective allies.

@Patrick Fiombea
1. The 800,000 mil Us$ is what goes directly to support the government budget. The bulk of the aid is managed by international aid agencies such as USAID,JICA to implement the bilateral programs in health, agriculture and other sectors. Please show me contradictory evidence of my statement and I will back it down, without resistance. By the way, should I conclude that the only point of disagreement you have against my earlier posts is only about the budget figures?
2. Do you have the link or documentary(written, Audio, Video) of the Bizimungu call to revisit the Berlin conference? I hardly tried to find one. If you have it I will be pleased to review it.

Unknown said...

@Gisa Rebero
I don't agree with you on almost everything. My gut feeling tells me that you are very close to Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) vision and objectives with regards to the DRC.
1.I am puzzled that you can throw out a number and you are unable to substantiate it, except by saying:
"Please show me contradictory evidence of my statement and I will back it down, without resistance".... 2 billion Us$ is a lot of money for a developping country and you must be able to provide more details. I am the one trying to make sense of all your unverifiable numbers !!
For instance, USAID sent about 94 million Us$ in its diffrent programs in the country in 2011 and JICA 20 million Us$.
I am missing over 1 billion Us$....I just need to provide some details.
2. You can try to access french speaking weekly magazine Jeune Afrique dated 08 Dec 1998. Unfortunately, you will need to visit a library....not RPF's library though
The main characteristics of a Congolese politician are:
So I wouldn't trust them if I were you. In september 2012, Roger Lumbala claimed that the M23 was actually sponsored by JK. So by extension, JK is also part of the M23 movement.
So Roger Lumbala has just joined JK and the M23. Or did I get everything wrong ?

Unknown said...

Patrick Fiombea,
Do not even disturb your gut. I was born and raised a Rwandan Patriot. And based on your name, you must be a French citizen, correct me if I am wrong. Your fellow country man Jean-François Dupaquier has openly defended M23 and criticized French positioning vis-a-vis the E-DRC conflict. I quote him and translate from French:
“A policy can’t be founded on emotions and sycophancy. What should I say about petitioners, who avoid confronting the Historical truth and ignore realities on the ground, at the risk of misleading the West with biased analysis of regional conflicts, as was the case for more than a century?
This newly formed party [NDLR: M23] is the only one among two dozens armed groups which doesn't use rape as a weapon of war. “
I will let to you the burden of proving me wrong with solid argument about the international aid numbers to Rwanda. As for the Bizimungu declaration, it sounds like another urban legend perpetuated by successive regimes in Kinshasa.
Roger Lumbala has a constituency behind him, and was voted back in office despite the massive fraud in November 2011. Kinshasa operatives are now saying that Diomi Ndongala was arrested when he was about to join M23 as well. Despite all the effort to stop it, a Popular revolution is under way in DR CONGO, and M23 is no longer the “beyond the pale” monster they wanted everyone to believe.

Rich said...

Gisa Rebero -

There you are again awkwardly trying to mock Congolese memory by bringing up Freud, Andre Lambert & Louis Lohle-Tart to your rescue!

Trust me it will be easier for your regime to vacate the DRC than actually trying to defend the indefensible the way you are!

I'm sure you read the Lambet & Lohle-Tart paper but it seems you missed one minute detail when clinging to it to offload your regime.

The paper says this, quote, "Our analysis used comparisons between the reconstructed actual population of the country and an hypothetic reconstruction of the same population..."

How if you pause a little bit longer on the following term, "hypothetic reconstruction"??? What does that mean?

I say this because I've had a very long and interesting conversation with both Lambert and Louis; so i know what I'm talking about.


Unknown said...

I posted the link for every who want to read and critically analyze a different point of view from those demographic researchers. What should I believe? Your words(what they told you), or their published findings?

Unknown said...

@Gisa Rebero
Simple question: 2 billion usd of western aid. In which year did Rwanda receive that amount ?
Is it every year ? Since when ? Can you provide your sources, please ?

Rich said...

Gisa Rebero -

Believe what you want.

I asked you a simple question on what they "published" e.i. (hypothetic reconstruction) and not on "what they told" me; simply because I never told you "what they told" me. So, it would have been only fair if you at least tried to address my question.


Unknown said...

@ Gisa Rebero

You said you were embarking on the “deconstruction” of “known facts” about Congo. I eagerly waited. Then all we see is mere “revisionism” or rather flat-out “denialism”. So disappointing!

Talking about the +- 8000 000 Congolese martyrs by Kagame, the only epistemologically sound and statistically diligent study about the casualties is that done by International Rescue Group (IRG) (

This has been peer-reviewed and published in all major journals that research “professionally” on war casualty estimates. Even when anti-Congo int’l cavalry (including Canadian Simon Fraser University and HSR) tried to underestimate the findings, they failed dismally. They (now you) just “negate” and not provide a counter-study of their own. As if exposing the true extent of the tragedy in the Kivus somehow hurts people, including you apparently. But the IRG researchers returned with even more scientific evidence to completely silent the “denialists of Congolese genocide”.

Lastly, if you still care, read this scientific analysis entitled “Mortality surveys in the Democratic Republic of Congo: humanitarian impact and lessons learned” by Richard Brennan and Michael Despines, and Leslie Roberts of Columbia University.

You see, this debate has been closed already. You just might be genuinely behind the curve on this one.


Unknown said...

Here is the link to the analysis entitled “Mortality surveys in the Democratic Republic of Congo: humanitarian impact and lessons learned” by Richard Brennan and Michael Despines, and Leslie Roberts of Columbia University.



Anonymous said...

Gisa has taken our Siassa community into interesting territory.

I guess I’m less interested in arguing about competing meta narratives as it relates to this conflict- which appears to be happening here- and returning to the original notions of Stearn’s latest post.

I’m rather pleased the UN is going to step in to hopefully craft a peace deal between the rebels and the government in Kinshasa.

But I do have some concern over the expressed concern about ensuring it attacks the “root problems” of the conflict.

1)I seriously doubt there will ever be a clear consensus among all the regional and international powers that may weigh in on this deal about said problems. The plain facts are that the DRC has a rebellion and a multitude of armed groups operating in its territory that it cannot quell. Thus, there is really only one major problem here- Kinshasa's rank and willful incompetence-that is of issue and must be resolved if this conflict is to subside.

2 As Rich and others comments make very clear to this "outsider", what is considered a “root problem” is in the eye of the beholder and could lead us down many important but, ultimately, less strategic paths. For example, it is true that Rwanda’s meddling in the Kivu’s stems from Kigali’s own tenuous hold on power. But is it not also true that young Congolese men- of any ethnicity- would not be so willing to join rebellions if they had better economic prospects? Indeed, one could come up with all kinds of underlying issues that feed rebellion in the Congo. I am simply concerned that if we attempt to deal with them all it will simply lead to paralysis when the Congolese people need clear and resolute action. In my opinion, this is just another version of the “complexity narrative” that is a hallmark of Stearns (and others) DRC analysis and a case of seeing the trees before the forest.

3) Finally, while I welcome a more robust engagement that is primarily political in nature by the UN, I think its important not to replace the particular lack of ambition of the current ICGLR approach with an overly ambitious UN one. What is required, I think, is gaining absolute clarity between short, medium, and long term goals. As Bruce eloquently put it in his post on the other thread, the 70 million Congolese simply need the IC to assist them with peace, development, the rule of law, and a functioning State. If this is the objective, then in the short term we need a ceasefire and some type of harmonization between either a beefed up UN mandate or using this “neutral force”. In the medium term, we just need a peace deal that is inclusive of ALL the main parties and their proxies. This must include political reforms and, perhaps, various economic integration frameworks that bring some sanity to the “war economy” that typifies eastern Congo. For the long term, I think the AU ALONE should monitor the resulting framework- both to keep all the parties to any agreement honest and to strengthen its own capacities. This long term objective, as others have stated, must have a clear exit date for both the UN and the Neutral Force. It would also be useful to place more conditions on aid to countries in the region tied to this deal and, perhaps, broaden participation in various terror/genocide related operations beyond Rwanda and Uganda.

Sorry for the long post but I did want to express my concerns over the understandable, but in my view misguided, “root problem” narrative emanating from this post.


Kongo in NYC said...


Great post. I also share some of your skepticism about an overly ambitious, "getting at the root problem", UN approach to a peace deal.

I'm curious though: what do you (or others) think could allow for this more ambitious, holistic approach? What would it take?

Also, one thing I would like to see happen is for the government in Kinshasa to fully pay for any and all security sector reform. From my understanding, Kinshasa has come up with a security sector plan- I can't find the link but I have seen it in the past. Well, the problem was that Kinshasa then asked the international community to pay for it which, ofcourse, fell on death ears primarily because the Congo is so potentially rich.

For many reasons, but mostly to begin the process of inculcating a culture of short, medium, and long term planning within our society (a big problem we face), I really believe we need to come up with the plan and the funding to build an effective and professional security apparatus.

Imagine if Kinshasa was forced to find an additional $3-6 billion to build a professional army via taxing its citizens?

The social contract that has generally been missing in our culture- ie, we give you taxes and you give us government-would be a thing of the past and the real "revolution of modernity" would be at hand.

Kongo in NYC said...

To answer Jason’s questions:

Within this regional process, how could the Congolese government credibly commit to the very political reforms it has resisted?

A few ways I think. Its possible that the representation by the “Congolese government” in the talks will include the opposition. If they are a party to the talks then ensuring their sign-off on any resulting deal would, by default, constrain Kabila. The other, perhaps more plausible, way is the influence of Congo-Brazza and Angola. I would imagine here support for Kabila would be tied to him actively supporting these reforms or, should he fail to commit, a withdrawal of this support. Indeed, if these two commit either money or troops to keeping the peace I’m fairly confident this would mean forcing him to accept these reforms. Finally, from all accounts at this point, this is Kabila’s last term so its quite likely he will be less concerned with maintaining a patronage network that has simply given him headaches and a mass of troubles.

In any event, I’m curious Mssr Stearns, why you continue to see Kabila as this immovable obstacle? You seem to give Kabila more political capital that, perhaps, is not as valuable as it once was. The inclusion of Uganda in possible talks seems to portend that the UN recognizes there are cracks in his armor.

How would such a process ensure that Rwanda and Uganda refrain from backing armed groups in the Congo, especially since they both deny such meddling?

Ultimately, this will be the result of the peace deal. I imagine that among its provisions will be clauses that give the Neutral Force the power to search and destroy “negative forces” in the region or, to be more blunt, delegate the “meddling” to the Force.

If this happens, this frees Uganda and Rwanda from acknowledging the support (ie, save face) and broadens responsibility for ensuring the anarchy that reins in the area to include Kinshasa and the region.

This is rather different than peace processes in the past, Jason. At no point since 2003 has responsibility for both creating AND keeping the peace been the reserve of the region's powers. Thus, if Rwanda tries to support other groups who then attack, say, Tanzanian troops and steal guns paid for by Angola, it puts Rwanda in a bind I’m fairly confident it doesn’t want to be in. You seem to suggest this in the preceding sentences after this question, Jason, but doubt the SADC is willing to spill blood. But why would blood be spilled if an African-led Neutral Force is seen by all as the deterrent?

Its like having an NRA sign on your apartment door in Brooklyn. The message to a robber is clear: feel free to rob me if you like but please know I have a gun and will not hesitate to blow your fucking brains out if you try to enter.

Unknown said...

I disagree with the suggestion to skip the root causes and address the symptoms. Guess what? 2016 we may be having to deal with another crisis. Remember we have 3 presidential elections in 2016 and 2017 in 3 key countries (DRC and Uganda in 2016, 2017 in Rwanda). If the constitutions in the respective countries are respected, we will have changes in the administrations in both DRC and Rwanda. Uganda is another story. Without robust peace agreement in place, then we risk having a situation where some leaders in the region could resurrect the senseless nationalism instinct to justify the changes in constitutions.
The UN should think of a “marathon” but not “a sprinter” peace process. As Jason put it right, we don’t need "another short-term fix, we need to address the deep-rooted challenges the region is facing". This includes openly pressing France and Belgium to stop their negative interference in the great lakes. If the US and UK don't want to embarrass valuable NATO allies, then the AU and UN should take over the task.

blaise said...

You are totally right, the roots cause is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.My solution: how about restoring justice and the rule of law? We have been lacking justice for decades. If people are convinced that their grievances can be solved by conflicts resolution mechanism,I bet you 90% of the troubles will be solved.
The other part is to offer ways of earning honestly their living. Some credit the decision by pres Kabila 2 prohibit mining in Kivu for the rise of armed militias. Those young men used 2 be miners.
Reinserting those militias in society will be challenging. Monusco is running a program in Ituri,teaching ex militia emn some trades. It's difficult since the temptation is 2 great 2 use gun for wealth.
In Nigeria, the gov pay 400 dollars per month and per person while encouraging them 2 learn a trade.
Whatever Congo will do it's has to be well thought.

blaise said...

@Kongo in NYC
Excellent points on both your intervention.
We can pay for the army reform, the GoDRC is just not interest to do so.As long they won't have the skin in the game aka paying for all, nothing will happen.We are a 20 billions economy per year settling for 7 billions.
I don't know if pres Kabila finally realize that the number alone is not enough.
The army can be alone the biggest employer in the country(military and civil personnel). With the right vision, it should be the engine for innovation and growth.
I always dream of what can be done with that workforce. The sky is the limit.

Unknown said...

@Gisa Rebero.
We keep circling around but the issue remains that same: what the "root cause of the conflict" is.
Obviously, since you stated: "I was born and raised a Rwandan Patriot", it will be difficult to convince you that the root cause is the undemocratic institutions in Rwanda.
*Your argument was the same used in 1990, when everybody, except the Habyarimana's regime diehards and Mobutu, did not want to agree that the root cause of the problem of Tutsi refugees was the lack of democracy in Rwanda. If I recall correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), both General Habyarimana and Mobutu Sese Seko said that the problem is the Rwandan Tutsis refugees who wanted to disturb peace in Rwanda. They though they were going to win the war. When they realized they could not, it was too late.

General Habyarimana pointed to a few Tutsi who were co-opted into the government, the same way RPF is pointing to a few Hutu (Rwarakabije, Marcel Gatsinzi, Kagame's cousin, and the other guy who is now prime minister, I do not know his name).
This is not how you resolve a deep rooted problem. You do not do it by buying or corrupting a few individuals from your opposition. You go to the root. In view what General Paul Kagame needs to do the following: ask the Rwandan rebels to put forward their leaders, and engage in a genuine peace process, by starting with the negotiations with these leaders, with the mediation of the UN Special Envoy. I do not understand why General Paul Kagame's advisors have failed to tell him that, or if they did, why he does not listen and spends his time cursing and challenging the West.

Regarding Joseph Kabila. It is another problem. His leadership skills do not match the complexity of leading the DRC. He is just too weak, too insecure, and perhaps, he lacks vision. And he seems to keep the East burning, so that the attention does not focus on his weaknesses.

Is the UN, AU, ICGL going to help him in that sense? I doubt it. Congolese need soul searching. Meanwhile, let UN, AU, US, UK, Tanzania, Angola, South Africa help General Paul Kagame and his Rebels and Joseph Kabila and his rebels resolve the problems in the Eastern DRC first. Then Joseph Kabila will not be able to hide his weaknesses. At the same time, by negotiating with his opposition, General Paul Kagame will have won the democracy challenge he currently faces.


Anonymous said...

@Gisa- To be clear, I’m not suggesting a peace deal not be comprehensive. What I am suggesting is that it not be so comprehensive that it ignores the need for extracting maximum- and painful- political concessions from all parties to this conflict. As stated earlier, it is my hope that any peace deal focus squarely on balancing incentives and sanctions for all the actors involved in this conflict and, at minimum, that the bulk of the responsibility of its creation, implementation, and execution should fall on the region’s main powers and the Congolese. Previous deals have either been of the “backroom” variety, not comprehensive enough, didn’t actually bring peace, and didn’t require regional powers to have any real “skin in the game”. There are many, many, many “root problems” to this conflict and I am simply concerned that too much focus on them could have the opposite effect of peace which, in my view, could lead to paralysis and more violence. While AMICON isn’t a neat parallel to the Kivu conflict, it has some hallmarks that could serve as a model for it- namely African-led and commanded peace-enforcing forces and a political process that brought domestic factions together so as to buttress state authority. AMISCON is a new and worthy model for the Great Lakes.

Bottomline: While important to recognize and make amends for various “root problems”, any deal should be explicitly & overwhelmingly political and force the various actors in this conflict to recalibrate- and destroy where necessary- their political/economic networks so as to ensure peace. Most of the “root problems’, in my view, should be solved internally by the Congolese civil society over time- not part of an overall peace plan.

@Kongo NYC- A more “ambitious approach” would take political will from everyone but, particularly, the international community to both get a comprehensive peace deal right and near religious attention to implementation and execution (and evaluation). Where there is a will there is always a way but it is key to get creation, implementation, and execution right. The UN system is (mostly) good on the “input” side of peace deals. The concern, particularly in the Great Lakes, is the “output”- or implementation, monitoring, and execution. Ideally, I’d really like to see this so-called Super Envoy with a clear mandate of a few years with even clearer benchmarks based on the resulting peace deal keep everyone on point. But again, this requires substantial political will from the regional powers, Africa at large, and the big players on the UN Security Council. Also, I completely agree about your idea about Kinshasa planning and paying for a more robust and professional security sector and justice sector. As Blaise just mentioned, if it is done well it could be the catalyst for economic growth. And yes, it would assist with ensuring the social contract in the DRC- a fairly alien concept to the country’s elites.
As an agriculture investor in the Congo, I’ve come to know quite a few local, provincial, and AG Ministry officials and businessmen/women. Trust me when I say that I’ve met more millionaires in one province in the Congo than I have in all my days in the State of Florida- and I used to sell real estate in Miami before becoming a teacher during the go-go late 80’s.
Money isn’t an issue in the Congo.

@James- I agree entirely.


Unknown said...

The noble cause of Congolese (Heart of Africa) people just went global Hip-Hop. After the greatest Mohamed Ali (the Congolese-American by his own admission) and other friends of justice and Congolese people, here are big American Hip-Hop names who break the silence about Congolese genocide: Talib Kweli, Pharoahe Monch, Mela Machinko, Lord Jamar, Mr.Len, Guy Routte, Sadat X, 7Knuckles, Homeboy Sandman, Pihon, Dezyne, SamUiLL, Jean Grae are but a few. (

This struggle is not just military, it is first PR. Kagame and backers (through CNN, NYT, WP and other media) had fun so far because we Congolese and “people of good will “ everywhere have been silent. But these people FEAR a different VIEW more than anything. Now that Aljazeera is in USA (Current TV), I can’t wait to see CNN bought by some Chinese, middle-eastern or African billionaire. Anti-Congo/Africa/others propaganda has few days!

The point is “Time is against you int’l Kagame apologists and Congo/Africa haters”. Times are changing, America is slowly being freed of a “well known” economic mafia and shadowy lobbyist gang (refer to Herman Cohen, Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan (Kagame sponsors) and Susan Rice handlers) who have kept America hostage for half a century. Now that peace seekers and independent minded fellows like John Kerry (foreign affairs) and Chuck Hagel (defence) enter the fray, INTERESTING!

As for Congolese, we can’t leave this struggle just to young compatriots like Kambale Musavuli ( or Vava Tampa ( It is our duty individually to spread the Congolese word. Look at the big picture. JK is just a small fry. This struggle is beyond JK, ET or anyone else. Any of our engagement should be about ending the carnage in the Kivus, not about any more theory on this!


Unknown said...

so now roger lumbala did join m23 and 6 more politician from kin r planin to join pretty soon here. its funny coz now all the congolese on this web r so quiet mmm i wonder.. oh well lets hope for the best out come for this kampala peace accord.

blaise said...

@Kizza brown
I don't think Congolese are quiet because Roger Lumbala by joining the M23 is an earth stopping event. He is entitled to his choices like General Kayumba did.Remember he was with the RCD, another Rwanda backed rebellion.Is it supposed to be a blow for Congo?
You guys should understand that you are deserving your cousins by glorifying the #M23. Don't you understand that you are Rwandan not Congolese,you guys are perceived as the expansionists, what do you think supporting the #M23 will achieve?Are you protecting those in the Masisi? Do you know what happened to the German speakers after the second world war? You should be smarter than that, and stop fueling hatred.
You should leave to Congolese to sort out their problems, your sympathy is just making thing worse and none of y'all is there to protect those who are killed/rapped across the Kivu.
I start to believe that you are working hard to have a bloodbath out there. Sorry, it won't happen.

blaise said...

Late Congratulations to some unseen Congolese Heroes

congo man said...

@kizza brown
Roger Lumbala ,Azarias Ruberwa,Busa Nyamwisi and many former RCD and even members of the so called radical opposition are known to be trators on PAUL KAGAME's payroll. Roger Lumbala has just come out of the closets but all those who are still hiding in the closets are known by almost everyone in the East. This is the reason why the so called Radical opposition has always been rejected in the east despite JK's lost popularity in those regions. PAUL KAGAME and his m23 terrorists can have LUMBALA and any other trator that they want but there still 70 million patriots who will never let PAUL KAGAME and YOWERI MUSEVI achieve their bloody plan in the DRC. You haven't seen anything yet my friend . You can enjoy and exploit JK's weakness,but after Jk there will be no more carrots for terrorists. Fire will be responded with fire .

blaise said...

Fascinating film abt #Rwanda. Crucial question, "if there is no Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda,why is it in the constitution that only Tutsi survivors will be taking care of?" article 14,amd n3 constitution 2008

Unknown said...


On just first day on the UNSC Rwanda has started obstructing the peace dynamic in the Kivus; they have just opposed the much-badly required use of “surveillance drones” to monitor the flooding of M23 and FDLR militias into Congo.

Question: if Rwanda has nothing to hide, why are they worried? They use an infantile or rather funny argument (if it was not about tragedy in Kivus) like “Africa should not be the laboratory of..blah..blah”.

Question: drones are currently used in Somalia by UN-AU forces (Uganda, Kenya), where were these Rwandan platitudes? What are they saying about that?

Look, we Congolese say UN and all people who want peace and prosperity in Africa, BRING all the DRONES to Congo (Kivus).This is Congolese territory and not Rwandan. Kagame has called MONUSCO all the names of Virunga forest animals claiming their inaction, now MONUSCO wants to be effective Kagame starts getting jittery.
Also, Kagame and backers have miscalculated the times. Check how Kabarebe assured us that the “int’l force” would never be deployed, it seems sooner or later it will be. What is this unilateral ceasefire by kagame M23 militia?

The point is time is against you. You enemies of peace in Africa are running out of ”games to play” to keep the status quo of killings of innocents and desolation in the Kivus!

As for DRCgov, know that peace between Rwandan and Congolese peoples means the END of Kagame’s regime; He won’t go easily,prepare for the worst!


blaise said...

Contrary to what @Gisa said general Bikweto died trying to stop a robbery. The bandits were robbing street money changers.
I know it was more sensational to paint pres Kabila as the culprit.

Unknown said...

Car Rental India is a car rental agency which provide car on rent and various services like taxi services,cab facility and best tour packages to many places with reasonable rates.

reginag said...

I had a good laugh on this!

high school volleyball

Unknown said...

The UN, AU have not made Rwanda part of their problem in Somalia like the Congolese have done. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen have opposed the drones from the outset but with no luck and Somalia stood no chance to object. would you let someone instal CCTV cameras in your house? UK has the most in the world and are frowned upon because no one knows who controls the image or what they're gonna do with them. You want to invite yet another organisation to control you're destiny? Then be it outs your destiny. Rwanda would rather those God forsaken drones weren't on African soil at all.

Unknown said...

I have searched for this article on the internet but with no success give me a link or stop listening to the haters to satisfy your daily poison dosage. It won't bring peace to the east its not called Rwanda Saisa for a reason.

Alex said...

The social contract that has generally been missing in our culture.
Internet Marketing for Small Business

Unknown said...

I appreciate your efforts to bring such a huge list for us. Nice feeling by reading this types of things…

Post a Comment