13 CFSP: EU SUPPORT FOR THE
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
(30992)
—
—
| Council Joint Action amending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
|
| Legal base | Articles 14 EU; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM 13 October 2009 and Minister's letter of 16 October 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (30900)—: HC 19-xxvii (2008-09), chapter 26, (14 October 2009); (30686 ) 10358/09 — HC 19-xx (2008-09), chapter 7 (17 June 2009) and (30667) — HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 21 (3 June 2009); also see (29722) — and (29734) — : HC 16 xxiv (2007-08), chapters 6 and 14 (18 June 2008), and (28650) — (28651) —: HC 41-xxiii (2006-07), chapter 19 (6 June 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| 19 October 2009 |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
13.1 The original police mission in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (EUPOL Kinshasa) was launched in April 2005 to support the
development of the Integrated Police Unit and play a key role
in the protection of the transitional government, crowd control
and public disorder leading up to the elections in 2006.
13.2 Its mandate was extended and amended in April
2006 to allow a temporary reinforcement to cover the elections
that were successfully held in September 2006, and allowed the
formation, in 2007, of a government which adopted a programme
prioritising reform in the police, the armed forces, and the judiciary.
13.3 Against this background, the EU indicated in
September 2006 that it was prepared to undertake, in close co-operation
with the UN, the coordination of international efforts in security
sector reform in order to support the Congolese authorities in
this area. Following two fact-finding missions in October 2006
and March 2007, two Joint Actions were agreed by the Council on
12 June 2007, which aimed:
— to
establish a police mission leading on Security Sector Reform and
its justice interface in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUPOL
DRC);
— to allow, via a new and revised mandate,
to build on the substantial progress already made during the previous
two years and continue to contribute to the integration of the
different armed factions in the DRC, and assist Congolese efforts
to restructure and reconstruct the army, to be known as EUSEC
RD Congo.[51]
13.4 Our previous Reports outline our subsequent
consideration of these two Joint Actions.[52]
13.5 One of the common concerns of all Ministers
for Europe from the outset has been that members of the security
sector are the perpetrators of what has been regularly described
as "a large proportion of violent crimes in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, including rape and human rights violations."
13.6 Earlier this year, on 3 June, the Committee
cleared a Joint Action amending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on
the European Union police mission, EUPOL DRC, and extending it
until June 2010. In so doing, it noted that, although the extension
raised no questions in and of itself, and there was more information
on this occasion about activity than there had been a year ago,
there was still a paucity of assessment of outcomes, i.e., the
extent to which all this activity and expenditure had produced
measurable improvements in behaviour and security. In particular,
in the critical area of violent crime, sexual violence and human
rights violations, the words chosen by the then Minister for Europe
(Caroline Flint) were identical to those of her predecessor 12
months earlier: "EUPOL continues to work with the Congolese
police in this field and to encourage officers to react to incidents
appropriately" — notwithstanding that, a year ago,
we had said that we would have liked evidence of how effective
the mission's advice had been, and how Congolese officers' attitudes
and practices had been changed by the "encouragement"
to which the then Minister referred.
13.7 We therefore asked the then Minister to say
something about this, and about the effectiveness of EUSEC RD
Congo, when she submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the forthcoming
mandate extension of this latter.[53]
13.8 On 11 June we considered a proposal is for a
three month extension, at no additional cost, of EUSEC RD Congo's
mandate. The Minister (Chris Bryant) explained in his 11 June
2009 Explanatory Memorandum that this was to take account of recent
changes in leadership, which meant that more time was required
for further detailed analysis on the needs and priorities of the
Congolese in the field of Security Sector Reform. He said that:
— "strategic
indicators" would be used to assess Congolese political commitment
in the medium term;
— a revised General Concept would be formed
including possible mission restructuring and detailed measures
of progress to assist further review of longer term engagement;
— a three month extension would allow this
work to take place and permit a better judgement when considering
any further mandate extension.
13.9 On 11 June, in a separate letter, the Minister
(Chris Bryant) also responded as follows to our earlier observations
on EUPOL DRC:
"The lack of professionalism, poor discipline
and conduct within the security services is directly related to
poor terms and conditions of service, lack of proper training,
and poor command and control. Human rights training which focuses
on awareness raising and similar interventions around SGBV (Sexual
and Gender based Violence) training must be accompanied by concrete
measures to improve pay, conditions of service, professional training
and strengthen systems for ensuring internal discipline and conduct.
The latter is part of longer term institution-building, to which
EUPOL DRC is a part, to secure behaviour change at an institutional
level.
"Such improvements in the attitudes and
behaviour of the Congolese National Police are inherently difficult
to measure. Changes tend to be incremental, rather than representing
a noticeable step change, and the process of reform is fundamentally
affected by changes in national leadership. However, there are
some positive signs of progress. For example, EUPOL has supported
national seminars with some success to build up the awareness
of the Congolese National Police to policing in a democratic state
such as how police should deal with meetings and public demonstrations.
The mission has also succeeded in pushing forward local ownership
of Police Reform which is a key step towards changing attitudes
and behaviours. The Police Reform Monitoring Committee (CSRP)
is now considered both by the Congolese authorities and by international
partners as truly owned and run by the Congolese.
"Violent crimes, sexual violence and human
rights violations continue to be areas of grave concern in the
DRC. For this reason, the Political and Security Committee requested
that Council Secretariat 'examine the options for strengthened
ESDP action to combat sexual violence and impunity in the DRC
in view of assessing a possible scope of action for EUPOL'. Work
in Brussels in [sic] on-going to discuss further measures that
the mission can implement. It is likely that the Operational Plan
will be adjusted to strengthen the ability of EUPOL DRC to combat
sexual violence and impunity."
13.10 Notwithstanding the Minister's views, we continued
to feel that it should not be difficult to measure change in a
situation in which, still, it seemed that a large proportion of
violent crime, sexual violence and human rights violations was
committed by members of the Congolese police and military: either
the number of such violations of human dignity and rights, and
the part of the security sector in them, was falling, or it was
not. We also asked the Minister if, in due course, he would let
us know the outcome of what the Political and Security Committee
had asked the Council Secretariat to do, and how the Operational
Plan was to be adjusted. We then cleared the extension.[54]
13.11 Most recently, in dealing with the Joint Action
extending EUSEC DRC from 1 October 2009 until 30 September 2010,
we noted that, in her Explanatory Memorandum of 14 September 2009,
the then Minister for
Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Baroness Kinnock of
Holyhead) said that the revised Joint Action
had a greater emphasis on tackling sexual violence and human rights
issues within the army reform process. Additional staff positions
were to be introduced to the mission's structure, and shared with
EUPOL DRC, focusing on Human Rights and Gender issues and based
both in Kinshasa and the cities of Goma and Bukavu, allowing the
mission to have a wide geographical influence. As well as having
several "strategic indicators", the then Minister particularly
welcomed the new initiative to review
mission progress at the six-month point against pre-defined indicators,
which she said was in line with the wider FCO strategy "to
develop more effective international interventions [which] …
will enable the mission to provide a progress report on the development
of the reform of the FARDC and to evaluate the impact of the mission."
13.12 We noted that, by the time this latest extension
was completed, the EU would have spent some €26.9 million
on EUSEC RD Congo, and said that the strategic
indicators should confirm whether or not the positive developments
to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in June, and which
seemed fundamental to any further progress, had been consolidated.
We also felt that it would have been
helpful to have had some details of the "pre-defined
indicators" that
the then Minister welcomed, which we assumed were the "measures
of progress to assist further review of longer term engagement"
to which the Parliamentary Secretary had referred in June. In
particular, we would have been interested to know how they would
measure progress on the problem upon which the project would now
be more focussed, i.e., sexual and
gender based violence. We still could not see why, when a large
proportion of violent crime, sexual violence and human rights
violations was said to be committed by members of the Congolese
police and military, it was said to be difficult to quantify the
number of such violations, and the part of the security sector
in them, and thus to see whether or not they fell: if this was
more complex than we had imagined, we said that it would have
been helpful if the then Minister had put the Committee straight.
We noted that there was to be a review in six month's time, and
accordingly asked the then Minister to report its findings and
recommendations and comment on this particular matter.[55]
Council Joint Action amending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP
on EUPOL RD Congo
13.13 The revised Joint Action outlines the financial
implications for the period 1 November 2009 to 30 June 2010
(the first four months, from 1 July — 31 October, were of
no extra cost).
13.14 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 13 October
2009, the then the Minister
for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Baroness Kinnock
of Holyhead) says that the estimated financial
amount to cover EUPOL DRC expenditure from 1 November 2009 to
30 June 2010 is €5,150,000, broken down as follows;
- Personnel Costs: €2,961,258
- Missions: €220,910
- Running Expenditure: €1,169,280
- Capital Expenditure: €715,515
- Representation: €14,000
- Contingencies: €69,037
13.15 With the UK currently contributing 17% to the
CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) budget, the then Minister
says that the cost to the UK will be €875,500 (£796,092).
The Minister further explains that the funding for the eight month
period will be used to purchase armoured vehicles and accommodation
in the east in line with the new multidisciplinary teams, as well
as ongoing mission expenditure.
The Government's view
13.16 The then Minister again recalls the contribution
of the Congolese Police or Armed Forces in SGBV crimes within
the DRC and again says that the revised Joint Action will allow
EUPOL DRC to place a greater emphasis on tackling SGBV through
its work advising and assisting the Congolese reform their National
Police Force. She continues as follows:
"Two multidisciplinary teams of experts
will be deployed to Goma and Bukavu in the eastern DRC in order
to provide advice and assistance on combating SGBV and impunity
as well as assisting with the stabilisation process. Although
based in the east of the country the teams competence will cover
the whole of the DRC territory. One of the main tasks of these
multidisciplinary teams will be to help ensure that legal services
are provided for victims of sexual violence and offenders are
prosecuted.
"The mission works in close cooperation
with EUSEC DRC (the EU's Army Reform mission to the DRC) which
has also recently been given a greater focus on combating SGBV.
By giving EUPOL DRC a greater emphasis on tackling SGBV as well
it will allow a more consistent approach to be taken on SGBV simultaneously
across both the Congolese Police and Armed Forces. The UK government
supports this increased emphasis as a means to achieve wider stability,
and increased faith in the Police and Armed Forces. This is also
an area that we believe the ESDP mission can make a meaningful
difference."
13.17 The Minister concludes by saying the Joint
Action is to be agreed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council
on 19 October 2009.
The new Minister for Europe's letter of 16 October
13.18 In his letter, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and now Minister
for Europe (Chris Bryant) says that he welcomes the Committee's
interest in the ESDP mission mandates, and regrets that "due
to the recent change of Ministerial portfolios, we were not able
to provide you with the Explanatory Memorandum in sufficient time
for it to be considered at your meeting on 15 October (sic)".
As a result, he says, he will have to agree for this Joint Action
to be considered at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 19
October without prior debate at Committee. He continues as follows:
"The Council Secretariat must proceed with
the implementation of the Joint Action, which provides the mission
with a greater emphasis on tackling sexual violence and, importantly,
provides the necessary budget for the mission to continue its
activities from 1 November 2009 until the expiry of its mandate
on 30 June 2010.
"While there are Council meetings towards
the end of October (Justice and Home Affairs on 23 October, and
the GAERC on 26 October), were I to delay lifting the UK scrutiny
reserve until 22 October, the Council Secretariat would not have
enough time to properly administer the renewal of contracts. This
would result in a gap in funding beyond 31 October 2009 until
contractual positions were resolved. As the mission is looking
to place a greater emphasis on tackling sexual and gender based
violence and is looking to deploy two multidisciplinary teams
to the eastern DRC to take this forward, this could have a serious
operational impact."
13.19 The Minister then says that he is taking this
opportunity to provide further information on the levels of sexual
violence committed within the DRC and the benchmarks being used
by the mission to measure the success of the work undertaken to
tackle this serious issue:
"The problem of rape and sexual violence
is one of the most serious aspects of the conflict in the DRC.
Sexual and gender based violence is used systematically as a weapon
of war by the Congolese Army and by militia groups to humiliate
and intimidate women and men of all ages. Conflict-affected areas
continue to be the hardest-hit, with South and North Kivu in the
eastern DRC recording the most cases. The UN Population Fund reported
5,204 cases during the period of January to June 2008 and the
Congo Advocacy Coalition announced over 2,200 cases of rape recorded
in North Kivu in the month of June 2008 alone. The more recent
reports from the mission itself have indicated that the number
of victims for the first half of 2009 (2,587) has exceeded the
total cases reported for the whole of the previous year (2,383).
The US Secretary of State visited the DRC in August 2009. Secretary
Clinton's visit highlighted the issue of sexual violence and reignited
the international community's interest.
"These figures reflect that the level of
sexual crime in the DRC remains a serious concern. However, as
my predecessor explained in the Explanatory Memorandum submitted
on 13 October, the amended Joint Action now grants EUPOL DRC a
greater emphasis on tackling sexual and gender based violence
through its work assisting the Congolese to reform their National
Police Force (PNC). Under the mission's new operational plan,
the success of the mission will be measured against the following
benchmarks:
- "the reinforcement of
the PNC's capacity to deal with the victims of sexual violence;
- "participation in a project to help map
the location of sexual violence incidents committed by the police
force;
- "the development of an anti-sexual violence
cell within the PNC; and
- "the implementation of a code of conduct
for members of PNC which reinforces the unacceptability of SGBV."
Conclusion
13.20 The Committee did not receive either his
predecessor's Explanatory Memorandum until 15 October or his letter
until 19 October. Nor, with the Committee due to meet on 21 October,
do we see why delaying submission of this document to the Council
until 23 October, rather than 19 October, would not have provided
the Council Secretariat with enough time to renew the relevant
contract. If the documents were ready on 19 October, then a delay
of three days would not have prevented their timely issue; and
if they were not ready, ditto.
13.21 As to the contents of his letter, it is
obviously worrying that, notwithstanding all the EU's efforts
thus far, the level of sexual and gender-based violence has increased
so dramatically in 2009.
13.22 We accordingly find it odd that, if "one
of the main tasks of these multidisciplinary teams will be to
help ensure that legal services are provided for victims of sexual
violence and offenders are prosecuted", this is not included
among the benchmarks to which the Minister refers.
13.23 He also makes no mention of any six-month
review period here, as is the case with EUSEC RD Congo. We nonetheless
ask that, when he reports on this review (c.f. paragraph 13.12
above), he also provides an assessment of how well the four benchmarks
and the task referred to in the previous paragraph have been achieved.
13.24 We now clear the document.
51 See (28650) - (28651) -: HC 41 xxiii (2006-07),
chapter 19 (6 June 2007) for our consideration of that Joint Action.
Back
52
See headnote. Back
53
See headnote: (30667) - HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 21 (3 June
2009). Back
54
See headnote: (30686) 10358/09 -: HC 19-xx (2008-09), chapter
7 (17 June 2009). Back
55
See headnote: (30900)-: HC 19-xxvii (2008-09), chapter 26, (14
October 2009). Back
|
