VZCZCXRO9856
PP RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHKI #0705/01 2401616
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 271616Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8349
INFO RUEHXR/RWANDA COLLECTIVE
RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUZEJAA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KINSHASA 000705 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL MOPS KPKO CG
SUBJECT: Goma Round-Up August 26 -- Plenary of 
the Joint Commission 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  After five hours of meetings with the 
facilitation team, CNDP agreed to go forward with the concept of a 
working group on disengagement.  Prior to the August 26 plenary of 
the Joint Commission, the team met Malu Malu and Etumba, who bought 
off on the plan and pushed it through the plenary.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The international facilitation team (EU, UK, U.S., MONUC) 
had a four-hour meeting with the CNDP delegation in Goma (minus Rene 
Abandi) on August 25, hoping to get CNDP's agreement on the idea of 
a working group on disengagement, to be presented the following day 
at the plenary of the Joint Technical Commission on Peace and 
Security.  CNDP's Bertrand Basimwa, with Abandi, had put forward the 
concept at a meeting with the team August 20.  However, the larger 
CNDP delegation (seven of the eight) on August 25 raised a host of 
other issues and appeared to be hostile to taking any action on 
disengagement without a simultaneous resolution of all CNDP's 
claims.  Privately, after this excruciating meeting, Bisimwa 
confided to poloff that the role of a negotiator was "extremely 
difficult.  Remember, (LRA's) Koni killed two of his negotiators." 
The following day's plenary was shaping up to be a waste of time. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) After consultation with what he called his "base" 
(presumably Nkunda) Bisimwa called poloff on the morning of August 
26 to say that CNDP had "moved in your direction."  Another hour's 
meeting with the full delegation -- not free of difficult moments -- 
ended with the CNDP delegation's agreeing to the working group 
concept in full.  The delegation opened with a seven-point position: 
 (1) It accepted creation at the plenary of two ad hoc working 
groups on disengagement, the one in North Kivu composed of FARDC, 
CNDP, PARECO, with MONUC military and the international 
facilitation; (2) It wanted verification of the complete separation 
of PARECO and FDLR; (3) FARDC would have to accept pull-back of 
forces on the same terms as CNDP; (4) Members of the provincial 
"cellules" would have to be accepted as members of the working 
group; (5) The concept of a working group would need to be extended 
to other areas, e.g., brassage; (6) It agreed to a time limit of 15 
days for the working group, after which the provincial structures 
would be established; and (7) The international facilitation would 
sign a memorandum certifying that it would put pressure on the 
government to take the CNDP's list of claims seriously. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The facilitation team responded that it took serious note 
of CNDP's claims, but it would sign no memorandum with any single 
group:  its job was facilitation.  It saw no problem with CNDP's 
cellule members being in the working group but other parties would 
name whom they chose.  It expected FARDC to be wholly involved in 
pull-back.  Success of this working group could possibly lead to 
other such working groups being created.  CNDP concluded that it was 
in "basic agreement" with the facilitation team, with the proviso 
that its full set of claims would need soon to be addressed.  The 
facilitation team noted, on the basis of what it had been told by 
Abbe Malu Malu, that the government would ask for one "non-contact" 
armed group (i.e., other than PARECO) to be included in the working 
group, as a way to placate the Mai Mais.  CNDP acquiesced.  The team 
concluded by urging CNDP not to raise inflammatory issues outside 
the agenda of the plenary. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The facilitation team had hoped for an extensive meeting 
with Malu Malu and Etumba prior to the plenary, but they arrived 
from Kinshasa only briefly before the scheduled start of the 
plenary.  After a 20-minute exchange they described themselves as 
content with the working-group concept as presented by the 
facilitation team in a document with the following points: 
 
-- Objective:  Make the plan of disengagement operational.  The 
working group will submit its final report to the Commission within 
15 days. 
-- Mandate:  Identify front lines; define zones of disengagement of 
armed groups in contact and FARDC, and commit to reciprocal 
withdrawal from these zones; determine means of securing these zones 
(MONUC and DRC); establish rules of managing these zones and a 
system of sanctions for non-respect of these rules. 
-- Composition:  Two technical groups for each province, with a 
limited number of members, to be accompanied by experts of their 
choice: 
(a) North Kivu:  One member from each armed group in contact (CNDP, 
PARECO/FAP); one member from another group to be named by the 
Commission; one from FARDC; one from MONUC; one from the 
international facilitation. 
(b) South Kivu:  One member from each armed group in contact (FRF, 
Mai Mai Yakutumba, Mai Mai Zabuloni, Mai Mai Kapopo); one from 
FARDC; one from MONUC; one from the international facilitation. 
-- Functioning:  MONUC and FARDC will co-preside.  An interim report 
will be submitted within eight days. 
 
 
KINSHASA 00000705  002 OF 002 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The plenary opened with a plea from Malu Malu that it was 
time to get down to real work, in particular on the disengagement 
plan.  The first agenda item for the plenary was the presentation 
(but not adoption, due to obvious CNDP objections) of the various 
plans that had been hammered out at the sub-commission level (mostly 
without CNDP and FRF participation), viz.:  Disengagement, 
Integration (with an annex on DDR), Return of IDPs and Refugees, and 
Restoration of State Authority.  With these presentations out of the 
way, Etumba opened discussion of what he called "an idea worked out 
by the co-chairmen of the Commission (i.e., Etumba and MONUC's 
newly-designated Eastern Coordinator, Alpha Sow) to ease concerns of 
all sides about the disengagement plan."  Sow and Malu Malu joined 
in presenting the working-group concept as outlined above.  Malu 
Malu noted that any armed groups which were not eligible for 
participation in this working group would make an important 
contribution, meanwhile, by taking "draconian steps" to reduce the 
claimed number of members (which have been wildly inflated). 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The concept was accepted by the plenary with no 
significant discussion.  The plenary agreed that eligible parties 
would convene on the next morning, August 27, to get to work.  The 
only major point raised by CNDP was a complaint about an incident 
that had occurred at Mgunga 1 IDP camp (east of Sake) on August 24. 
CNDP commissioner (and Goma delegation chairman) Kambasu Ngeve said 
that a group of IDPs who were trying to leave the camp to return to 
their homes in Ngungu (far southwest of the CNDP-controlled area) 
had been beaten by the police.  This action, he said, appeared to be 
a "politicization" of the IDP-return issue.  Etumba and Malu Malu, 
uninformed about the incident, said that any aggression against IDPs 
was completely unacceptable.  They said that return of IDPs was the 
most important indicator of success of the Amani process, all the 
more reason, they noted, that it was essential to get down to 
serious work on the disengagement plan.  Malu Malu said he 
envisioned that the pull-back would create not only areas of 
military disengagement but, effectively, "real humanitarian 
corridors." 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The other principal agenda point was an evaluation of the 
humanitarian situation in the Kivus, accomplished with eloquence and 
thoroughness by Mamba Leonard Mashako, co-chairman of the 
Commission's humanitarian sub-commission.  He minced no words in 
reviewing the dire conditions prevailing in much of the Kivus to an 
audience representing groups largely responsible for bringing about, 
perpetrating, and deepening the suffering in the region. 
 
GARVELINK