M23 Congo Rebels Fear War Over UN Sanctions This is a link to an article published in the The Independent and written by Haggai Matsiko (2013) that touches on a topic that I have been grappling with for the past several months: How should the international community (and by this, I mean IGOs, NGOs, international non-state actors in general, and state governments) treat rebel groups in the context of forging peace agreements? There are obvious dangers to raising these groups to a state-like status, but there are also drawbacks to failing to provide enough legitimacy to make negotiations meaningful for the rebel parties.
The UN has imposed sanctions and travel bans on high-ranking members of M23, spurring resentment and renewed tensions between the rebel group and the government of the DRC. The sanctions were imposed following investigations into accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is the responsibility of the UN to intervene in situations where civilians are being targeted, harmed, and killed, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a state or non-state actor. But the government of the DRC warns that such actions by the UN will only inflame the situation, bringing about more destruction and loss of life. It appears as though M23 has enough control over the fragile situation in Eastern DRC to hold state governments at bay . . . but what of the international community? To what extent is the UN willing to provide support to DRC civilians in light of the sanctions the UN has imposed on M23? We must not be satisfied with precedent and status quo, but we, especially scholars of transitional justice, but continually ask ourselves questions regarding responsibility, power, control, and enforcement. These negotiations with M23 will not end quickly. Let us see whether this group remains resolute about an independent territory in North Kivu.
No comments:
Post a Comment