Have sub-regional organisations overpromised but under-delivered on the Great Lakes?
Three years after a regional agreement on resolving conflict in the Great Lakes was signed, little has been achieved.
On 1 December 2010, the Secretary General of the East African Community (EAC), Juma Mwapachu, and the Executive Secretary of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), Liberata Mulamula, signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) committing the sub-regional bodies to consolidate efforts aimed at preventing, managing and resolving the conflicts in the Great Lakes region. The MoU also targeted the promotion of democracy and good governance; the prevention of sexual violence against women and children; and improving protection of human rights and the environment.
Three years down the line, however, the Great Lakes region continues to witness a never-ending cycle of violence, especially in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). With the mantra of ‘sub-regional solutions to conflict’ gaining strength following developments in Somalia, it becomes imperative to assess the progress, if any, that has been made by these two bodies.
The Great Lakes region, and the eastern DRC in particular, has for some time now been at the epicentre of protracted inter- and intrastate conflicts. The net effect of these internecine encounters has been the loss of livelihood, humanitarian crises, population displacement, and human rights violations. The move towards a cooperative arrangement was deemed necessary because the two regions, other than being very closely linked in terms of cross-border security concerns, also share members: the EAC countries of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi are also members of the ICGLR, which also incorporates Angola, the Central African Republic (CAR), Republic of Congo, DRC, Sudan and Zambia. It is for this reason that the MoU between the EAC and the ICGLR sought to reinforce the capacity of the two bodies to anticipate, prevent, manage and resolve conflicts, and support and encourage initiatives aimed at economic transformation.
While the two regions epitomise the interconnected cross-border nature of conflict in Africa, which makes shared conflict resolution efforts a very relevant goal, not much has been done in terms of joint action to address any of the protracted conflicts.
Even after the CAR faced a dangerous crisisfollowing a coup d’état by the Seleka rebel coalition earlier this year, the two sub-regional organisations, and by extension the African Union (AU), have largely remained silent on the matter. The only exception has been a statement in January 2013 by the ICGLR welcoming an agreement (which did not last) to end the crisis in the CAR. The EAC, while recognising the critical importance of security in fulfilling its mandate of development and integration, has lagged behind in institutional development and diplomatic engagement to promote peace and security agendas either within its member states or between itself and the ICGLR.
The ICGLR, on the other hand, has undertaken a number of initiatives and activities aimed at promoting peace through high-level dialogue at both bilateral and regional levels and by working with the AU and United Nations (UN). Most recently the ICGLR convened various consultative meetings on the insurgency in the eastern DRC, although some observers question the value of these meetings and accuse some ICGLR members of being part of the problem in the Great Lakes region.
Yet despite these efforts by the ICGLR and the international community, lasting peace has remained elusive, with countries like Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda all being affected by the eastern DRC conflicts. The challenge has been that most of the existing conflict resolution mechanisms, especially in the Great Lakes region, remain largely militaristic and reactive rather than predictive and anticipatory. Interventions are also accused of being locked within frameworks that emphasise the rigidity of national sovereignty and boundaries. The argument here is that violence points to dislocations in the broader fabric of society, and military interventions may not be sufficient unless the structural problems that promote violence are addressed.
It is unfortunate that the two organisations have signed an agreement that seemingly exists on paper only. Conflicts in the two regions highlight the need for regional security cooperation and the need to adopt measures that go beyond ensuring the security of the regime toward a holistic human security approach. Some scholars point out that collaboration is easier among organisations that have similar interests, which would seem to be the case with the EAC and the ICGLR (although some of their members may not always have shared interests). According to Mumma-Martinon, a conflict prevention analyst and former head of applied research at the International Peace Support Training Centre in Nairobi, a lot of organisations in Africa have a very similar agenda of promoting peace and security, with problems arising due to a lack of coherence and co-ordination.
From an African perspective, It is clear that sub-regional organisations have a crucial role to play in conflict resolution, as underscored by the complementarity approach of the AU. The problem, however, arises from a lack of commitment to implement such initiatives and weak institutional capacity. The situation is sometimes compounded by financial challenges.
For the EAC and the ICGLR, the lack of follow-up on the MoU raises questions as to whether existing frameworks for regional cooperation can support broader peacebuilding efforts and facilitate more peaceful relations within and between states in Africa. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions to the conflict in the Great Lakes region – a major theatre of political instability and insecurity – but the envisaged working relationship between the two sub-regions can be a good starting point. The MoU, however, needs to be augmented with practical implementation measures and elaborate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
Overall, the EAC and the ICGLR, like all other sub-regional organisations on the continent, need to be proactive in developing shared common approaches to conflict resolution and promoting integrated socio-economic and political frameworks if they are to serve the needs of their various constituencies.
Gino Vlavonou, Junior Fellow, Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis Division, ISS Nairobi
