Another critical analysis has emerged against UN Group of Experts (GoE) report on the Eastern DRC depute, the critic this time is the Howard G. Buffet Foundation; a non-political entity working independently to support lasting peace and promote economic prosperity in Africa’s Great Lakes region which has added its voice to various critics of the UN Group of Experts’ (GoE) latest report on the DRC conflict.
Last year 2012 the GoE ousted a report which linked Rwanda to the M23 rebel outfit fighting the Government of DRC.
Rwanda has since been refuting allegations of Kigali supporting M23 rebels launched a rebellion in eastern DR Congo last year. Rwanda called the findings and evidence presented by the experts as “unfounded” and “fabricated” with a lot of inaccuracies.
In a 23 page review of the 2012 GoE report, the foundation shows disappointment at the shoddy work which was done by the group in a matter like the DRC conflict it should have taken serious.
The foundation says that it is disappointed by much of the resulting media coverage which has oversimplified the source of conflict in DRC and its solutions and fundamentally disagrees with the punitive response by bilateral donors.
“We do not feel holding back the development of countries in the region helps achieve what we all want for the people of eastern DRC: lasting peace and economic prosperity,” the document says in part.
The review points out that throughout 2012, cooperation and diplomacy between the Group of GoE and the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda broke down which fatally undermined the value of the GoE’s important work and increased risk in the region.
“The failure in process undermines the credibility of the findings, limiting potential policy prescriptions that could reduce violence in the Great Lakes region,” says the document.
This lack of cooperation appeared to prompt an unproductive “digging in of heels” by the GoE, the Government of Rwanda (GoR) and the Government of Uganda (GoU), casting doubt on material questions of fact.
The review articulates that while prior GoE reports focused on a broader range of interactions, the 2012 Final Report reads as a prosecution of Rwanda and to a lesser extent Uganda, largely ignoring the other significant factors contributing to unrest in the DRC.
“Again, the breakdown in diplomacy combined with the GoE’s legitimate desire to focus on findings of highest impact appears to have led to this skew.”
The foundation review notes that the GoE’s Final Report failed to fully adhere to the UN’s established investigative guidelines, the GoE’s own methodology as prescribed in Annex 2 of the report, and the GoE’s UN mandate.
Annex 2 states that the Group conducts exhaustive and in-depth field research in zones controlled by armed groups, seeking at all times to rely on authentic documents and, wherever possible, first-hand, on-site observations by the experts themselves, including photographs and,… the Group systematically assesses the credibility of each of its sources and remains wary of deliberate efforts to influence its findings.
Much controversy has surrounded the pedigree of specific GoE claims and supporting data points. At the core of these point-counterpoint analyses is the argument that the GoE were overly reliant on unnamed sources, without explanation of these sources’ motives or impartiality.