Skip to main content

U.N. deployment of surveillance drone in Congo delayed to December


U.N. deployment of surveillance drone in Congo delayed to December

Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:49am IST


* Surveillance drone had been due to be deployed in August

* U.N. says M23 not a threat to Goma, camps, peacekeepers

* U.N. says should be no amnesty for M23 rights abusers

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The unprecedented deployment of an unarmed surveillance drone by U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been delayed several months due to procurement procedures, the U.N. peacekeeping chief said on Thursday.

The United Nations has procured an unarmed surveillance drone from Italian defense electronics firm Selex ES, a unit of Finmeccanica, that was due to be deployed in the volatile eastern Congo during August.

"There has been some delay much to my chagrin but these have to do with the rules that member states have made upon us as far as procurement is concerned," peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous told a news conference. "Now the goal is definitely for the first days of December."

It will be the first time the United Nations has used such equipment and, if the trial surveillance use by peacekeepers in eastern Congo is successful, officials and diplomats also hope the drones could be used by missions in Ivory Coast and South Sudan.

Thick forests, rugged terrain and the scarcity of roads on Congo's eastern border with Rwanda and Uganda have complicated efforts by the U.N. peacekeeping force, known as MONUSCO, to control the resource-rich area.

Congo and U.N. peacekeepers have been battling an insurgency by M23 rebels for more than a year. U.N. experts have accused Rwanda of sending troops and weapons across the border to support the M23. Rwanda denies the accusation.

Fighting in eastern Congo between rebels and Congolese troops, supported by peacekeepers, flared up again last month.

"It was a bit worrying two weeks ago but I think we are making progress," Ladsous said on Thursday.

"The M23 group has been pushed back towards to the north to such a place that it does not anymore pose the direct threat that it had posed for such a long time either on the city of Goma or on the surrounding IDP (internally displace people) camps or indeed on the positions of MONUSCO," he said.

NO AMNESTY

Ladsous said on Thursday a 3,000-strong U.N. intervention brigade - with a tough new mandate to protect civilians and neutralize armed groups in Congo - was still "working to reach its established levels of staffing and equipment."

Rwanda accused Congo of persistently shelling into its territory during the renewed clashes last month, saying such a "provocation" could no longer be tolerated. But U.N. officials told the U.N. Security Council that peacekeepers had seen only M23 rebels shelling into Rwanda.

Regional presidents last week called on Kinshasa and the rebels to restart negotiations after the army, backed by U.N. troops, bolstered the government's position with rare military successes in recent fighting.

The M23 said on Sunday it was ready to return to peace talks and would not make integration into the national army, which has not proved successful in the past, part of the deal.

U.N. special envoy to the Great Lakes region, Mary Robinson, told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday during a closed door briefing that the U.N. position was that there should be no amnesty or integration into the Congolese army for M23 members who have violated human rights, diplomats said.

Robinson also called on the council to urge the presidents of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi to meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly later this month to build regional cooperation.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Le Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placé le Rwanda là-bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le déploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   Résumé exécutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de Défense du Rwanda (RDF), imposées par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayées par une pression croissante de l'Union européenne, ont mis à nu une contradiction stratégique de premier ordre. La même force militaire sanctionnée pour son soutien opérationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en République démocratique du Congo est simultanément le principal garant sécuritaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploité par le géant français TotalEnergies à Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse répond à trois questions interconnectées dont les réponses définissent ...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute