On June 27, a Kigali radio journalist called requesting for my comment on what he termed Monusco’s lifting of a travel ban to allow the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) head, Gen Gaston Iyamuremye, to travel to Italy for a meeting organised by the Catholic Church’s Sant’Egidio and also talk to some UN officials there.

Suspecting the news to be humbug, I declined to comment until I personally verified it. I couldn’t fathom how Monusco could help FDLR, considering that top leaders of all armed groups in DR Congo are not only under UN travel bans but also it had promised to militarily defeat the militant group as it had done to M23 in November.

The following day, however, newspapers carried the story and Gen Iyamuremye confirmed it on Voice of America, adding he would confer with notables including UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Mary Robinson and Belgium’s Special Envoy to the region, Frank De Connick.

Apparently, UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Hervé Ladsous had, on June 24, written to the Security Council requesting the lifting of the travel ban. And media reports said even before the council could respond the man had been airlifted by Monusco to Kinshasa, en route to Italy.

Until then, the stated UN policy position was that FDLR is a destabilising group that should be neutralised, disarmed and its leaders who might have committed crimes against humanity held accountable.

UN Resolution 2098, which created the Force Intervention Brigade as an “offensive” arm of Monusco, states that it “strongly condemns the M23, the FDLR… and all other armed groups and their continuing violence and abuses of human rights, including summary executions, sexual and gender-based violence and large-scale recruitment and use of children, demands that all armed groups cease immediately all forms of violence and destabilising activities and that their members immediately and permanently disband and lay down their arms, and reiterates that those responsible for human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law will be held accountable.…”

Resolutions 2078 (2012) and 1807 (2008) slapped travel bans on leaders of armed groups. It was in line with Resolution 2098 that M23 was militarily defeated with a promise to turn the guns on FDLR. Seven months later, not only is FDLR still standing but its leaders are aided to travel and meet top UN officials.

That people the UN accuses of carrying out atrocities could be invited by the head of UN peacekeeping to meet UN officials is quite remarkable. Bear in mind that Kigali has accused the same individuals of complicity in the 1994 genocide and the UN is supposed to be committed to NEVER AGAIN.

In its resolution, the UN doesn’t request but demands “all armed groups cease immediately and permanently all forms of violence and destabilising activities… their members immediately and permanently disband and lay down their arms.”

Rwanda’s Representative to the UN Eugene Gasana was quoted as responding: “The request for travel exemption is part of a pattern… that attempts to deny and diminish the criminal essence of the FDLR, to find an excuse for its acts, to treat this genocidal group as a notable one with legitimate political grievances and… cleanse it from the most heinous crimes.…”

Now, it is tempting to view the tinkering with the travel ban as a way of speeding up that process by the UN. But considering that the same treatment was not extended to M23, there is a reason to be sceptical and view the act as giving political legitimacy and diplomatic support to FDLR — as Kigali believes.

If facilitating FDLR to travel is part of a broader strategy the UN strongly believes will bring about surrender and quick disarmament, it should properly explain this to members, including Rwanda.

But if UN’s policy on FDLR is still one of unconditional disarmament, it should sanction Mr Ladsous for violating its resolution and attempting to politically and diplomatically prop up FDLR.

Unless Ladsous is sanctioned, the UN risks being perceived as partial and biased — ills that compromise ideals of neutrality and impartiality on which peacekeeping is based.

Christopher Kayumba, PhD, is a senior lecturer at the School of Journalism, University of Rwanda, and managing consultant at MGC Consult Ltd. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @CKayumba