VZCZCXRO7154
OO RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHKI #0196/01 0571004
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 261004Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7588
INFO RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE
RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUZEJAA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KINSHASA 000196 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV KPKO CG RW
SUBJECT:  Joint Monitoring Group Task Force - February 22 
 
REF:  07 Kinshasa 1419 
 
¶1.  Summary.  Intervention by MONUC political chief Christian Manahl 
February 22 in Goma promises to impose some discipline on future 
meetings of the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) Task Force.  Manahl 
conveyed JMG envoys' dismay at the meetings' lack of focus and 
presented generally well-received proposals aimed at shortening and 
revitalizing them.  Rwanda emphasized it had done everything asked 
of it in the Nairobi communique.  Congo noted that leak of the 
number of genocide suspects on Rwanda's list had slowed its FDLR 
sensitization campaign, and said it expected to begin military 
action against the FDLR sometime after March 15.  End Summary. 
 
------------------- 
An end to wrangling 
------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Christian Manahl, MONUC's acting political adviser, raised 
longstanding concerns about the productivity of the Nairobi 
communique's Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) Task Force during his 
co-chairmanship of its 10th meeting February 22 in Goma.  Manahl, 
who had participated in the JMG envoys meeting in Brussels the week 
before, told members that envoys had complained that the task force 
spent too much of its time discussing minutes.  He noted that one 
envoy had threatened to pull representatives from task force, 
calling the meetings "a waste of time." 
 
¶3. (SBU) Manahl was forced to return to the subject again after 
Congolese and Rwandan delegates continued to spend considerable time 
wrangling over the text of minutes from the previous week.  He said 
bluntly that the envoys were "absolutely scandalized that so much 
time is being wasted."  The message was finally received, and 
welcomed, by most of members.  Meeting reports will henceforward 
include only basic information on who attended, what was decided, 
who needs to take what action before the next meeting. (Note: 
Nevertheless, the meeting lasted six-and-a-half hours from start to 
finish.  End note.) 
 
---------------- 
Down to business 
---------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Discussion finally turned to Rwanda's and Congo's regular 
presentations on implementing the communique.  The Rwandans 
emphasized they had done everything asked of them and asked again 
for specifics on the FDLR.  The Congolese talked about their 
sensitization program to encourage FDLR to return to Rwanda.  The 
leak of the number of potential "genocidaires" (over 6000) on 
Rwanda's list was slowing the program.  FDLR members assumed they 
might be on it and were thus afraid to go home.  The Congolese said 
the FARDC will begin military action against FDLR after March 15 and 
expected to resolve the problem "within 40 days."  They also 
notified the group of a CNDP training center in Tshnzu, near 
Bunagana. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Manahl provided an informal readout of the JMG envoys 
meeting in Brussels.  He stated that the issue of the genocidaires 
list was controversial and would be dealt with in another forum. 
The Rwandans also offered their interpretation on the meeting. 
 
--------------------------- 
Revitalizing the task force 
--------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Manahl cited a request that the Congo-Rwanda Joint 
Verification Commission (JVC) and the JMG Task Force work together, 
and suggested that a JVC representative address a future meeting of 
the task force.  This was met with general interest.  However, the 
Rwandans objected that it was not a proper function for the task 
force.  An international member contended it was appropriate because 
both Congo and Rwanda continue to raise allegations of violations in 
task force meetings.  The Rwandans insisted they were not making 
"allegations," but simply "informing" the task force. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Manahl and the Congolese delegation proposed that the task 
force meet every two weeks going forward.  He suggested that other 
activities might take place during the vacant week.  The Congolese 
suggested members could visit a small group of South Kivu FDLR who 
were ready to repatriate.  The Rwandans expressed concern about 
security and immunity in connection with traveling in Congo, 
pointing out they were uncomfortable with doing so without 
diplomatic credentials.  The task force agreed to request the 
Congolese government to issue travel documents which would address 
these concerns. 
 
¶8. (SBU) In an effort to energize future proceedings, members agreed 
 
KINSHASA 00000196  002 OF 002 
 
 
to Manahl's proposal that the next task force meeting hear 
presentations by Congo and MONUC on the FDLR sensitization program 
and DDRRR. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Comment:  Deja-vu all over again 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  Comment:  MONUC's three-month presidency of the task force has 
had its share of growing pains.  Its acting chairman bypassed 
agreement by participants at the initial task force meeting in 
December on a limited reporting format similar to that put forward 
by Manahl (reftel), leading directly to the current malaise.  It 
also failed to follow-up Congolese delegates' lack of response to 
the Rwandan request for travel documents made at that first meeting, 
leaving the Rwandans to raise it again 10 weeks later.  End 
Comment. 
 
Garvelink