VZCZCXRO7091
PP RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHKI #0890 2901253
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161253Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8611
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 KINSHASA 000890 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL MOPS KPKO CG
SUBJECT: 42ND MEETING OF THE JMG TASK FORCE 
 
REF: KINSHASA 886 
¶1.  (SBU) The 42nd meeting of the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) Task 
Force was held October 10 in the Rwandan border town of Gisenyi. 
All key Task Force members were present.  The Task Force agreed upon 
a document prepared by the Chairman (the U.S. Office in Goma 
currently holds the rotating chair of the JMG) that would help 
ensure JMG coverage of all pertinent aspects of the Nairobi 
Communique implementation.  The Task Force dedicated a significant 
amount of time to the previous meeting's minutes, as well as to the 
issue of where the next Task Force meeting should be held.  Rwanda 
is asking to hold the next meeting in Gisenyi again, while the 
Congolese want the venue to return to Goma.  End Summary. 
¶2.  (SBU) The JMG Task Force meeting began with a presentation by 
the Chair (United States, Geoff Parker) of a technical working paper 
listing all items in the Nairobi Communique requiring implementation 
that the Task Force should be monitoring.  The paper was drafted by 
the Chairman based on a discussion at the previous meeting during 
which Task Force members identified areas of interest with regards 
to the Nairobi Communique.  Specific categories included military 
and political "sensitization" (awareness) activities (both DDRRR and 
national/ international media), human rights, and links to other 
international mechanisms, such as the Amani Program, the Joint 
Verification Mechanism (JVM), and the Tripartite Plus.  Within each 
category the Task Force identified key stakeholders and indicators. 
The categories will be used to ensure the JMG regularly prioritizes 
and monitors all pertinent aspects of Nairobi implementation through 
weekly discussions, guest speakers, or field visits. 
¶3.  (SBU) The discussion of the previous meeting's minutes was, as 
usual, the most contentious item on the agenda.  Disagreement 
revolved around the Rwandan delegation's insistence that a sentence 
be added to capture their disappointment with the issue of alleged 
FARDC-FDLR collaboration.  No sentence had been added initially 
because the issue had been mentioned tangentially towards the end of 
the previous meeting and had not been discussed.  Other Task Force 
members agreed that since the issue was well-known and had already 
been noted in previous minutes, it did not add much value to the 
permanent record of the 42nd meeting, except to underline the 
continued inability of the Task Force to effectively address the 
issue.  In the end, the Rwandan delegation relented and the sentence 
was not added.  The Task Force agreed, however, to dedicate a 
portion of the MONUC permanent weekly record to catalog issues on 
which the Rwandan and Congolese delegations cannot agree. 
¶4.  (SBU) The issue of FARDC-FDLR collaboration brought about a 
discussion of the Joint Verification Mechanism (JVM).  All Task 
Force members agreed that the JVM was the appropriate forum in which 
to raise such topics.  Since the JVM was a common topic of 
discussion, as well as a rare item upon which both the Rwandan and 
Congolese delegations agreed, members decided to refer the issue to 
the special envoys to obtain necessary support from the political 
level to re-energize the mechanism.  (Note: Congolese MFA Mbusa sent 
a letter dated October 9, contained in reftel, to SRSG Doss 
requesting activation of the JVM to investigate GDRC claims of 
Rwandan Defense Force -- RDF -- support for CNDP leader Laurent 
Nkunda.  End Note). 
¶5.  (SBU) The Task Force also addressed the question of location for 
future meetings.  The Rwandans continued to insist that the lack of 
security in Goma -- as well as the somewhat negative perception of 
MONUC by the local population -- made the situation in town 
"explosive."  A meeting in Goma was therefore, at least temporarily, 
out of the question, in their view.  The Congolese, on the other 
hand, felt that meeting in Gisenyi violated the Task Force's working 
modalities and was a practice that should not be continued without 
special envoy consent.  Both sides are considering options, 
including the possibility of an armed MONUC escort from the border 
to the conference room on one of the MONUC bases in Goma. 
¶6. (SBU) Comment:  The Rwandans, who requested that the meeting be 
held in Gisenyi over Goma because of security concerns, opposed 
paying fo a conference site.  The Rwandans did agree, howevr, to 
find a site for future meetings on the Rwadan side of the border. 
(Note:  Embassy Kinshasadecided at the last minute to pay for a 
room in  Gisenyi hotel to avoid the JMG meeting being canceed for 
the second week in a row.  This is not anissue in Goma, where MONUC 
hosts all JMG meeting.  End note.)  Nonetheless, the issue of where 
fture JMG meetings are to be held is not resolved a the GDRC is 
reluctant to hold future meetings inGisenyi without special envoy 
endorsement.  Give persistent Rwandan concerns about security in 
Gma, the meeting as cheduled on Friday, October 17is not certain 
at this time.  End Comment. 
BROK