 For more videos on people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. Towards the end of February, a meeting of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the Democratic Republic of the Congo was held in Kinshasa. The framework has been signed by 13 countries and is a regional initiative to address the violence and crisis in the DRC. However, from the very beginning, the framework has been riddled with issues of justice and accountability that have never been properly addressed. Kambale Musawuli of the Center for Research on the Congo talks about some of these issues. The DRC Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework, usually called in French Accord-Cadre, is an agreement I was signing in Addis Ababa between about 13 African head of state to bring about peace, security and cooperation in DRC. But this comes from a very particular context. In 2012, we had a rebellion in the Congo of a rebel group called the M23, which is a random-backed rebel group that destabilized the DRC almost the entire year, caused a lot of original conflicts and that the nations implicated started getting engaged to say after a few decades of war in DRC, there needs to be something actually taking place to bring about peace. So the agreement is about African nations, but there was a militia group. So for listeners, for viewers watching this, they should understand that the conflict in the Congo is not just rebel militias fighting amongst themselves to bring about democracy or whatever the narrative they push. Clearly shows that it's a regional problem. So in the framework, there were a lot of obligations for DRC, a lot of obligation around opening up political space, around democracy and so on. The DDR program for the demobilizing rebels and so on. But there was no concrete obligation for Congo's neighbors, particularly in Rwanda and Uganda. That's one of the biggest criticisms of the framework that Rwanda and Uganda, who have invaded the Congo twice in 1996 and 1998 and continue to support proxy rebel militias, had nothing actually in the agreement holding them accountable or creating obligations for the recidivism of them continuously supporting rebel proxy militia. The other criticism of this framework is that it puts Congo's mineral resources under control of a panel, right, that the Congo pretty much lost its sovereignty in this framework. And the last, even though it's kind of mentioned on the first point, is the question of justice. We strongly believe that in order for peace in the Congo to take place, there needs to be justice. There is no fundamental clause or obligation in that agreement that calls for justice, specifically for what Congo's neighbors have done, the continuous invasions of the ERC, the continuous support of rebel militias, the crimes that the rebels are committing on the ground. So until we address the question of justice, this framework, this agreement will not bring about peace, security, or cooperation in the region. How do I know? This agreement was signed in 2013. We are in 2022. There is still no peace in the Congo. There is no security for civilians, particularly in the east. And in terms of cooperation, regional cooperation, it's still not taking place in a way where it's benefiting the Congolese people. There is still exploitation of the Congolese people. So these African heads of state decided at the end of February to come to Kinshasa to review this agreement to see what has been achieved. To me, this meeting in Kinshasa at the end of February of this year is more head of state traveling to Kinshasa, but not necessarily something concrete where we're seeing an advancement after nine years of this agreement bringing about peace, security, and cooperation in the region. The meeting was especially significant considering the recent militancy of the group Allied Democratic Forces or ADF in the Congo. A number of countries in the region have either sent forces or planned to send soldiers against his insurgency. How do we see the regional response to the ADF and what larger strategic goals does his response hide? You know, it's quite fascinating that in the past few years, there has been discussion of Islamic, so-called Islamic terrorists in the DRC, mainly pushed by Washington, by the State Department, and by the US Pentagon. They've been saying that there is a rebel group tied to ISIS in the DRC, and there must be some military operations taking place to eradicate these Islamic terrorists. Of course, I can go one by one to say how this is really an equivocation. One, Congo is a majority, a Christian country. Two, the UN group of experts have clearly shown for the past three to four years that there is no connection between the ADF rebel group and ISIS, that this is fabricated information on the part of those who are mentioning that there is a connection. And three, this is an anecdote from a human rights activist I just met in this past February in Kinshasa, where they share that if the ADF tied to ISIS, it will be the first in the world that Islamic terrorists are actually stealing pigs from Congolese farmers to feed themselves. So even the locals are understanding that this is a fabrication. But even though it's a fabrication, the concrete ways it has appeared in the DRC is that we have now many military operations taking place. The US has sent a special military advisor to the DRC. We have Kenya, which shares pledge to also send soldiers in DRC. We have Uganda, which they have already sent the UPDF, the Uganda People's Defense Force. They are in the DRC right now fighting the ADF with the Congolese military. And there are so many displacements taking place there, and they're giving us narrative that they're actually fighting ADF. We have the random soldiers also who are pledging to come into the DRC. The police is on its way to the DRC. And just last week, we had the Turkish president who was visiting DRC, and he also has pledged to send Turkish soldiers to the DRC. But looking at all of this framework, all of these military engagements were specifically, we are forgetting that Congo has been destabilized because of his neighbors in the East one and Uganda. We strongly believe that until we address the question of justice in the DRC, there won't be peace. We will have these symptomatic solutions to the conflict because the ADF is not the Congolese problem. It's the Uganda problem. But you have Ugandan soldiers in the DRC. The same thing with many of the rebel militia supported by Rwanda times and so on. So how do we address the question of justice? Let's just look at what the International Court of Justice did last month in February. The International Court of Justice, after going through its sentencing that took place in 2005, in 2005, the International Court of Justice found Uganda guilty for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and preferring Congo's resources. They just announced the judgment last month. And the judgment is that Uganda needs to pay over $300 million in reparations to the DRC for the crimes that committed in the DRC. We are not discussing reparation, but we are discussing military operations by the invaders. So if we don't address the question of justice, the recidivism in crimes will take place. And I'm very clear that Ugandan military operation in the eastern part of the DRC, led by Museveni son, Murosa, you know, he's one of the commanders of the UPDF forces, that their operations in the DRC has nothing to do with media. He has everything to do with the oil reserve that's been found in the Benin region, all the way to Lake Albert in the DRC. And this is estimated at over two billion barrels of oil that's been discovered. And most of this oil is on the DRC side. So everyone wants a piece of this oil. And there is a narrative of joint military operations to bring about peace. And we've heard this story in Afghanistan. We've heard this story in Iraq. And we are clear that in DRC, that's why they are there. And we'll continue to denounce it and call always that in order for peace, security and cooperation to take place in DRC, we must resolve the question of justice. And this justice comes with holding criminals accountable, holding nations, destabilizing the convoy accountable household by the creation of an international tribunal for DRC, where the perpetrator of violence in DRC will be held accountable. How have successive governments in the DRC responded to such a regional initiatives? Have they been attempts to stand up for the country's sovereignty? Or have they mainly functioned as clients of powerful players? We have to understand the conflict in the Congo in its proper context. In 1996, two of US allies, Randa and Uganda, invaded the Congo, continued to support proxy rebel militias. And pretty much since that time to today, Congo has been under tutelage. Congo's politics is decided in the Germanic original block of Central Africa. It's decided in Kampala and Kigali. On the international level, it's decided in Washington and London. So there is little room to the Congolese people at this time to be able to have a say in the decision making process in the country. Let's just look at the last election. In 2018, there was a rigged election. The Congolese people were clear around the result, but a regional block came to support results that do not represent the Congolese people, would actually unfold them. You had South Africa, you had Egypt and Kenya, who made sure that the former president of DRC, Joseph Kabila, and the one who was declared the winner of the election, Felix Giusecchetti, signed a secret deal in order for a so-called peaceful transfer of power to take place in DRC. But a secret deal had a few clauses, one not holding Kabila accountable, like going after his asset, a promise he committed, while the so-called new president continued to rule the country. So when you see that and you know the interests of the people, you are clear that Congolese people don't have a say in the future of the country. And the succession of regimes since 1996 have been unable to do that. Has there been resistance from the Congolese people? Of course, there have been. Throughout this entire process from 1996 to today, Congolese have resisted. This is also why we have a very high death toll. Over 6 million Congolese have died in the conflict in DRC. They didn't die just watching someone coming to kill them. They resisted. And we also had young Congolese, many of them lost their lives. There was Sitchi Manga, who stood up for a free and fair election that was shot and killed inside of a church. Luke Kulula, another young person who was unfortunately burned to death in his house. He was one of the young Congolese also fighting for a free and liberated Congo. So there have been many young Congolese who have lost their lives. Many others who have been arrested, tortured, jailed to see that free Congo. The challenge that they face is they are organizing a fighting on the inside. The strength of building a Pan-African or an internationalist network for support on the outside has not been as strong as it should be. And why is it important? That model is well-broadened to the apartheid regime in South Africa. An inside strategy and Assad's strategy to end the exploitation of South Africans, to end the apartheid regime. In the DRC, the same is needed. What Congolese are fighting on the inside, they need allies on the outside to put pressure on negative forces against the Congolese, demanding corporations, Congo's neighbors, Washington and London, all these international Congolomerates who want to get access to Congo's cobalt, water, and many other resources that we have. When that happens, it gives them a chance to determine their affairs. But at least for the foreseeable future, the battle of the Congolese is continuing to see a free and liberated Congo. It is difficult, but they are determined to achieve the ideals of Patrice Mouba. They are determined to see a free and liberated Congo because it's not just for them. As they succeed to do so, it will allow Africa to reach the next level, to develop the African continent, and to make the continent much more of a place of prosperity and peace stability.