UN wins war in DRC but loses neutrality

Hundreds of IDPs are locked outside this MONUSCO base in eastern DRC, this as war raged a few kilometres away

A coalition of United Nations peacekeepers made up of the UN Stabilisation Mission in Congo (MONUSCO) and the Intervention Brigade Force (FIB), the DR Congo Army (FARDC) and the genocidal FDLR from Rwanda has defeated the M23 rebels in DR Congo.

The verdict from the media and countries behind the UN forces in DRC is that this victory has changed the notion and nature of peacekeeping around the world.

That is true, but it has changed it for worse. And so, ironically, one of the casualties of the war in DRC is the UN itself. The world body has lost some of its greatest assets – neutrality and impartiality which have always guaranteed the trust and confidence of rival parties to a dispute.

For long the UN has been the preferred arbiter because of its perceived even-handedness, its abhorrence of the use of force and a preference for peaceful means to resolve conflicts. That is the only way it could stand between warring factions and persuade them to negotiate.

But in the fight against M23 rebels, the UN took sides in a local political dispute and used force to resolve it in favour of one party. In doing so, it has killed and buried the cherished principle of neutrality and expended its moral capital. It is unlikely to enjoy unqualified trust in future disputes.

In DRC, this tested method has been thrown overboard. The UN has allowed itself to be a tool of an alliance of the big powers, concession-seekers and other dubious interests.

It has been used to impose the will of some and trample on the rights of others like a rogue elephant.

And, by working with and fighting alongside known genocidaires of the FDLR, the UN peacekeeping forces in DRC have lost their moral standing. The FDLR, armed with weapons provided by the UN, are now reportedly marching to attack Rwanda to complete unfinished business

To appreciate the extent of the fall of the UN in DRC, one has to understand why it is there in the first place.

The UN, with a force of more than 20,000 men, has been in DRC for more than a decade. First, it was known as the United Nations Mission in Congo (MONUC). Then it turned into the United Nations Stabilisation Mission for Congo (MONUSCO) with a mandate to disarm all armed groups, including FDLR and stabilise the country.

Recently, the force was beefed up with a brigade with orders to fight.

However, the UN’s record has been dismal in regard to its stated mission.

MONUSCO has done nothing to disarm the various armed groups. Instead, it has watched as the FDLR plundered, murdered, raped and destroyed property on a massive scale. It has stood by as the genocidaires took over mines, rearmed and organised in order to attack Rwanda and carry on where they left off nearly twenty years ago – continue the genocide against the Tutsi.

Its troops were involved in sex scandals, some involving sex with minors in exchange for food and such luxuries as biscuits.

When they were not out seeking illicit pleasures, they were gunrunning – selling weapons to the very forces they were supposed to disarm.

Or they were trading in the much-touted minerals of DRC.

Lately they have descended even lower by allowing the FDLR to fight alongside the FARDC and to join the FIB.

The war against M23 rebels may be over, but the partisan involvement of the UN has not in any way contributed to world or regional peace and security. And far from the experience in DRC being used to redefine the nature of peacekeeping, it has cost the organisation international goodwill and trust. If there is any lesson to be learnt, it is that the UN should return it to its original impartial role of arbiter and facilitator in resolving conflicts and not a biased party that instead exacerbates them.