VZCZCXRO9510
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHKI #1406/01 3601341
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 261341Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7292
INFO RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE
RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KINSHASA 001406 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV MOPS KPKO PREF PHUM CG RW
SUBJECT: Congo-Rwanda Joint Verification Commission 
         (JVC) meeting, December 20-21, 2007 
 
REF:  Kinshasa 1377 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY 
 
Note:  The following report was provided by Embassy Kinshasa's 
political officer in Goma.  End note. 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  The Congo-Rwanda Joint Verification Commission 
(JVC) authorized Joint Verification Teams (JVT) to investigate 
allegations of violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity 
at the December 20-21 meeting in Rubavu, Rwanda.  It also clarified 
several procedural issues involving investigations.  The commission 
addressed Congolese insistence on an investigatory role for the 
Nairobi Communique's Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) by agreeing to 
invite the JMG to define its relationship with the Joint 
Verification Mechanism (JVM).  It addressed Rwandan objections to a 
re-draft of the JVM terms of reference by agreeing to consider 
written comments at its next meeting.  Congo agreed to host the next 
meeting within the next two months at a date and place to be 
determined.  The meeting was less important for what it agreed than 
for the fact that it took place at all after an hiatus of almost two 
years.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) At the December 20-21 meeting of the Congo-Rwanda Joint 
Verification Commission (JVC) in Rubavu (formerly Gisenyi), Rwanda 
authorized Joint Verification Teams (JVT) of military experts based 
in Goma-Rubavu and Bukavu-Cyangugu to immediately begin operations 
to monitor and investigate allegations of violations of sovereignty 
and territorial integrity.  The JVC and the JVT together comprise 
the Joint Verification Mechanism (JVM), mandated by a 2004 bilateral 
agreement to verify, investigate and report on allegations regarding 
Rwandan combatants, Rwandan involvement in the DRC and border 
violations. 
 
¶3.  (U) The meeting also clarified several operational issues 
involving the JVT, discussed the JVM's relationship with the Joint 
Monitoring Group (JMG) established by the Nairobi communique 
(reftel), and received a proposal for revising the JVM's terms of 
reference.  Presidential Special Envoy Ambassador Richard Sezibera 
(who chaired the meeting) and Ambassador-at-Large Seraphin Ngwej 
headed the Rwandan and Congolese delegations respectively.  SRSG 
William Swing represented MONUC while the African Union was 
represented by Ambassador Pierre Yere; Political Counselor David 
Brown participated as USG official observer. 
 
JVT operations 
-------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Lt. Colonel Acton Kilby of MONUC, acting as JVT 
facilitator, said the teams appear to be functioning effectively, 
noting, however, there were unspecified difficulties "at higher 
levels."  Kilby reported that since the September 2007 JVC meeting, 
the JVT had implemented a new structure, re-opened its Bukavu 
office, and established a secretariat at MONUC headquarters in 
Kinshasa.  Each of the two teams is led by a MONUC liaison officer, 
and composed of three military experts, one each from Congo, Rwanda 
and the AU.  The commission agreed that the two sides should 
exchange lists of team members and notify movements in advance in 
order to minimize past cross-border travel difficulties cited by 
Kilby. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) As the commission's investigative arm, Kilby said the JVT 
is currently investigating seven allegations, and noted their work 
will support both the JMG and MONUC's DDRRR program.  Swing observed 
that previous JVT investigations had determined that 20 of 22 
allegations the JVC had received during its existence were without 
foundation.  The commission agreed that teams will investigate 
suspected violations when one party informs the other in writing, 
copying MONUC to ensure expeditious action. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Kilby also asked the commission to authorize the JVT to 
investigate allegations of border violations involving Uganda or 
Rwanda.  The commission concluded that other mechanisms should be 
used in such cases. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The Rwandan JVT leader observed that the teams had been 
inactive for nearly two years after Congo withdrew its members in 
¶2006.  He raised concerns that long-standing allegations made by 
Rwanda regarding infiltration by ex-FAR/Interahamwe fighters into 
the Congolese army via the brassage process had yet to be examined. 
As he had at the December 16 JMG meeting (reftel), Ngwej said that 
Congolese authorities had recently detained a member of the Rwandan 
military or presidential guard.  The commission agreed both sides 
should review outstanding allegations and re-submit them as 
appropriate. 
 
KINSHASA 00001406  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
Relationship with JMG 
--------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The meeting's most contentious issue involved the 
relationship of the JVM to the Joint Monitoring Group agreed to in 
the Nairobi communique.  Ngwej made repeated calls for investigation 
of allegations by the JMG, echoing similar statements December 16 
(reftel).  Members of the Rwandan delegation objected that the 
Nairobi communique called for existing mechanisms, such as the JVM, 
to be used whenever possible. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The issue was finally resolved by discussions on the 
margins prompted by the U.S. observer which resulted in agreement 
that although the JVC could not define the JMG's role, it could 
request the JMG to put together a proposal on how it would relate to 
the JVM and other bodies mentioned in the communique.  Swing 
privately expressed consternation at Ngwej's continued interventions 
on the point, noting that none of the Congolese delegates he had 
talked to understood Ngwej's insistence on it. 
 
¶10.  (U) Note:  In the Nairobi communique of November 9 both sides 
agreed to "share information, and address issues of common concern 
through existing mechanisms, in particular the Joint Verification 
Mechanism (JVM) and the Tripartite Plus Commission."  The December 5 
JMG modalities of work document notes that the JMG task force "may 
initiate its own investigations/inspections," while its terms of 
reference of the same date requires it to "work closely with the 
Joint Verification Mechanism to seek verification of facts and 
clarification of situations."  End note. 
 
Terms of reference 
------------------ 
 
¶11.  (SBU) A second point of contention involved a proposed update 
of the JVM's terms of reference by MONUC.  The text took the Rwandan 
delegation by surprise.  Sezibera said he had first seen the 
re-draft on December 16.  Rwandan delegates asked why the new text 
was necessary.  They were happy with the 2004 original, which they 
said had involved six months of negotiations.  Ngwej said Congo 
supported the new draft in its entirety, and criticized Rwandan's 
position as an obstacle to progress. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Swing was clearly embarrassed that what MONUC had viewed 
as an essentially technical exercise had become a major point of 
disagreement, but chose not to note that the Tripartite Plus 
military chiefs of staff had tasked MONUC, as the JVM secretariat, 
to do so.  Sezibera, as chairman, finessed the differences by asking 
both sides to submit comments in writing for discussion at the next 
meeting. 
 
Next steps 
---------- 
 
¶13.  (U) Ngwej said that Congo would host the next JVC meeting 
within the next two months, as required under the current terms of 
reference, at a time and place to be determined. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Like the December 16 JMG, the most important news was 
that the JVC met and both sides expressed commitment to the process. 
 The Rwandans appeared to be the better prepared of the two 
delegations, but Ngwej's monopoly of the comments on the Congolese 
side effectively overshadowed any expertise his delegation might 
have contributed.  End comment. 
 
GARVELINK