With the world focused on the conflict in Gaza and President Obama’s trip to Asia, rebel forces taking a city in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has received little attention. Members of the M23 group on Tuesday seized control of the border-town of Goma, a city of a little over one million inhabitants, capturing its radio station and parading downtown.

The fall of Goma is the latest move in one of Africa’s longest and bloodiest conflicts. Complicating the matter is Rwanda’s alleged support for the rebels. While M23 rebels on Monday withdrew to positions further from Goma to provide space for political talks, putting forward a list of demands in order to seal a cease-fire, the Congolese government rebuffed the offer.

That refusal set off the current clashes between Congo’s army and rebels, leading to an army withdrawal and M23 control of Goma. The Rwandan and Congolese presidents are reported to be meeting today to help defuse the crisis. The Ugandan government meanwhile, also accused of supporting M23, has said that it has called for calm, while blaming a U.N. report for the new violence.

M23′s rise can be seen as a continuation of events in 2008, during which another Rwandan-backed group known as the CNDP sowed chaos in resource-rich Eastern Congo. After the European Union threatened to intervene, the solution at the time, agreed to on Mar. 23, 2009, was to integrate the CNDP into the Congolese army. Instead of forging a lasting peace, many of those same soldiers defected earlier this year to form the M23, led by wanted war-criminal Gen. Bosco Ntaganda.

NGOs such as Amnesty International and others are highlighting the plight that internally displaced citizens face caught in the cross-fire, as thousands have fled. Oxfam’s humanitarian coordinator Tariq Riebl, currently on the ground near Goma, said yesterday, “Families have been split up overnight and people are desperately going between sites trying to find loved ones. If fighting intensifies further, there are very few places people can go for safety. With almost 2.5 million people now displaced across eastern Congo, this catastrophe requires a concerted humanitarian and diplomatic response.”

Meanwhile, members of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the Congo, the largest in the world with 6,700 blue helmets in the North Kivu region alone, had utilized attack helicopters to bolster Congolese assaults on M23 positions for months, and retains control of Goma’s airport. However, the U.N. has reported that is pulling “non-essential personnel” from Eastern Congo as a precaution and the peacekeepers were unable to prevent Goma’s fall.

At the United Nations Security Council, French diplomats are currently circulating a draft resolution expressing its intention to impose financial and travel sanctions on the M23′s political and military supporters. While the text does not specifically call out Rwanda or Uganda, the draft is in line with a proposal put forward last week by a U.N. Group of Experts to apply these bans to the Rwandan Defense Minister. Rwanda is due to join the Council as a rotating member in Jan. 2013, a position that is facing intensifying scrutiny. The U.S. has not provided comment at this time whether they support France’s draft, which is due to be voted upon at 5:30 PM EST.

A United Nations Group of Experts (GoE) has suggested a new target for sanctions related to the ongoing violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: the Rwandan Minister of Defense. The experts offered Defense Minister James Kabarebe’s name up for blacklisting due to his suspected role in arming and leading the M23 rebel group in the Congo, as detailed in a report earlier this year.

The GoE made its pitch to the United Nations Security Council committee responsible for sanctions on the Democratic Republic of Congo on Monday. While no action was taken on that specific suggestion, the committee did decide to send forward the rebel leader Sultani Makenga to the full Council for potential repercussions. Among the punishments that the U.N. has at its disposal for individuals accused of breaching international peace and security are travel bans, freezing of financial assets, and even potential referral to the International Criminal Court.

Drama of being named aside, the question of whether the Security Council will take action against any Rwandan officials is a different story:

Diplomats said it was unlikely the council would find the consensus necessary to add any Rwandans to the U.N. blacklist.

“But the fact that the Group of Experts would make this recommendation will itself send a strong political message to Rwanda about the need to curtail support for M23 rebels,” another diplomatic source said.

The accusations against Kabarebe have prompted the United States, Sweden and the Netherlands to suspend some aid to Rwanda, which relies on donors for about 40 percent of its budget. In September the European Union froze further budgetary support to Rwanda.

Even a slim chance that a member of President Paul Kagame’s cabinet be sanctioned puts Rwanda in an interesting position. Rwanda was elected last month to join the Security Council for a two-year term, starting in January. While no vote will likely come of the GoE’s suggestion at this point, it does still lend itself to the potential that further revelations of the link between Rwanda and the M23 could spur a U.N. response. In that event, Rwandan diplomats would have their work cut out for them.

The situation has the potential to be awkward for for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice as well. Rice, thought to be the front runner for the position of Secretary of State once Hillary Clinton departs, is particularly close with Kagame. Also, the United States has been accused of holding back the release of the initial GoE report that accused Rwanda of aiding the Congolese rebels, possibly at the behest of Rice.

As President Obama’s electoral victory continues to sink in, many have already begun to refocus on the many foreign policy issues overshadowed by the race for the White House. Most rapid analysis has focused on those items that always seem to top such lists: ongoing issues in the Middle East, the winding down of the war in Afghanistan, and possible confrontations with China. Rather than rehashing those matters, here’s five issues that while they may be less discussed will definitely help shape Obama’s second term:

MEXICO

Absolutely ignored during the general debate, and only brought up the the myopic frame of border security during the Republican primaries, President Obama will eventually be forced to confront the instability in Mexico. President Felipe Calderon’s six-year war against the drug cartels has yielded an estimated 50,000 deaths just south of the U.S. border as of August. The bloodiest of the gangs, the Zetas, have made it their strategy to consolidate control over large swaths of territory in their entirety. By conquering all elements of crime and supplanting the government, the Zetas now control the third-largest state in Mexico. As President Enrique Pena Nieto takes office next month, Obama needs to work closely with his counterpart at finally developing a strategy for cooperation.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

During Obama’s first term, there was a rhetorical emphasis on nuclear disarmament, with the President calling for a world free of nuclear weapons in 2009. Obama then launched the Nuclear Security Summit in 2010, became the first sitting President to chair the U.N. Security Council during a high-level meeting on nuclear non-proliferation, and achieved passage of the New START Treaty with Russia.

Since 2010, however, North Korea has proved to be unwilling to roll-back its nuclear weapons program despite substantial concessions from the U.S. Russia has likewise opted to walk away from the Nunn-Lugar agreement, saying they can now safeguard nuclear material throughout the former Soviet Union without the United States. Obama next has the chance to show American leadership on the issue at the Helsinki Conference on a Nuclear-Free Middle East later this year, possibly bringing Iran and Israel both to the table.

EUROZONE

While also completely forgotten during the election, Europe is nowhere near out of the woods yet in ending its ongoing economic crisis. On Wednesday, the European Commission revised its projected growth for the Eurozone from 1 percent to 0.1 percent. The ongoing economic instability continues to rattle financial markets, making it clear that the United States’ economic recovery remains closely tied to Europe’s. Obama made significant progress at the last meeting of the Group of 20 in forcing Europe to take strong action, counter to Germany’s prescribed austerity measures. It’ll take even more leadership over the next four years to ensure Europe pulls out of its tailspin.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL LAW

Far more so than if Mitt Romney had won, a second term for President Obama can be expected to include a strengthening of the role of international law in the world. First, the President can showcase the U.S. commitment to international law through the signing and ratification of new treaties, including final passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty in Senate or a United States-led push on climate change, a subject finally mentioned by Obama in his victory speech. Obama will also likely continue to strongly hold other states accountable to their obligations under international law and bolster support for those adhering to the rule of law. Such an approach has been, and will continue to be, key in Obama’s strategy towards China, particularly in its territorial dispute with Japan.

AFRICA PIVOT

Though it’s gotten far less press than the much-more publicized “Asia Pivot,” the increased flow of resources to Africa during the Obama administration can’t be denied. The shift has been part of Obama’s fight against terrorist groups globally, including the launch of drone strikes from Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti and providing support for Kenya’s fighting al-Shabab in Somalia. The U.S. also currently provides military training and support to armies throughout the continent, such as the task force helping Uganda hunt war -criminal Joseph Kony. As questions of how to handle al Qaeda-related or branded groups in Africa, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali, continue to grow, Africa will remain closer to the forefront of Obama’s foreign policy than many realize.

In a landslide victory, the East African country Rwanda has been elected to serve a two year term on the United Nations Security Council. The win comes at a time when Rwanda is under increased scrutiny for its potential role in facilitating a rebellion across the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

An armed rebel group known as the M23 has been launching assaults against the Congolese army and civilians in the country’s east for months now. Composed of mutinous former Congolese soldiers, the M23 have proved a major challenge for the Congolese government and the United Nations peacekeeping mission tasked with assisting in protecting civilians. A U.N. Group of Experts (GoE) charged with reporting on the situation in the DR Congo have implicated the Rwandan and Ugandan governments in not just complicity with the M23 militia, but providing direct support and leadership.

Reuters obtained a copy of the GoE’s forthcoming report on Tuesday:

“The Government of Rwanda continues to violate the (U.N.) arms embargo through direct military support to M23 rebels, facilitation of recruitment, encouragement and facilitation of FARDC (Congolese army) desertions as well as the provision of arms and ammunition, intelligence, and political advice,” said the report, which was seen in full by Reuters.[...]

“M23′s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defence General James Kabarebe,” said the experts, who monitor compliance with U.N. sanctions and an arms embargo on the Congo.

The report also singles out Uganda for providing “troop reinforcements … weapons deliveries, technical assistance, joint planning, political advice and facilitation of external relations.” In all, the GoE document further clarifies the annex to an interim report issued several months previously, going into much greater detail about the DR Congo’s neighbors’ level of involvement with the M23 rebels. Rwanda at the time strongly denounced the findings of the interim report and its annex.

Both Uganda and Rwanda have denied the substance of the new report. Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo slammed what she called a “political campaign”:

“Every UN member-state should find cause for concern that these expert panels feel entitled to treat sovereign states in such an appalling fashion,” she said. “Who are these unelected, unaccountable individuals to abuse the authority granted to them by the UN to pursue political vendettas and deny even basic procedural fairness to a country like Rwanda, a member of the United Nations for half a century?”

As a non-permanent member of the Security Council, Rwanda won’t have the same powers that permanent members such as Russia and the United States have to veto resolutions. However, their place on the Council gives them a strong perch to defend themselves from sanctions and other punishments. Such a position isn’t without precedent. The sole previous instance when Rwanda held a Security Council seat was in the midst of the 1994 genocide.

Due to the way Security Council elections are held, Rwanda was almost certain to gain a seat: it ran unopposed. Nominations are typically decided in advance by the regional groupings to whom seats are allocated. The African Group in particular is extremely strict about maintaining its rotation, and this year the seat was due to go to a country from East Africa. None stepped forward to take Rwanda’s place, though Ghana is rumored to have been willing to take up the nomination if asked, despite being out of rotation.

Rwanda will be joining Argentina, Australia, the Republic of Korea, and Luxembourg in sitting on the Security Council from Jan. 1, 2013 until Dec. 31, 2014. The five will be replacing Germany, Portugal, India, South Africa, and Colombia.

As the security situation in Mali continues to deteriorate, human rights abuses against women and children are on the rise, according to a senior United Nations official. In a four-day tour of northern Mali, U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Šimonović noted that the human rights situation on the ground has shifted since the conflict ignited in early 2012.

Previously, members of the Tuareg rebellion seeking independence from the Malian government carried out abuses in pursuit of their goals. But a junior officer-led coup by the Malian Army against perceived government weakness in pursuing the Tuareg in March considerably changed the conflict’s dynamic. Islamist groups such as Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO) took advantage of a weakened government and unorganized Tuareg rebels to gain control of vast swaths of territory.

Their de facto control of the north has increased the systemic nature of the assaults as well as changed the targets, the U.N. report says:

Allegedly at least three executions, eight amputations and two floggings have been carried out in recent months. Forced marriages are reportedly common, and women are being sold and forced to remarry, which is akin to rape and commercial sexual exploitation. Šimonović said that one of the people he had interviewed had told him that “women were not only for sale, but also ‘on sale’ in the North, and can be bought for less than 1,000 US dollars.”

During his mission, Šimonović drew particular attention to the violation of women’s rights. “Women are the primary victims of the current crisis and have been disproportionately affected by the situation in the north. Their human rights, to employment, education and access to basic social services have been seriously curtailed,” he said.

Among the other troubling reports from the U.N. visit is the compiling of lists of women “who have had children out of wedlock, or are unmarried and pregnant” for reprisal and the recruitment of child soldiers into the Islamists’ camps.

Ansar Dine and MUJAO have in the past months also destroyed ancient shrines and kidnapped and executed diplomats. Both groups maintain ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), an affiliate of al Qaeda’s core, which has put down roots in Northern Mali.

The situation in the south, including Mali’s capital Bamako, is one of instability as the national government rebuilds itself post-coup. Mali has reached out to the international community for assistance in recapturing territory, prompting the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to pledge military force to assist in an intervention. However, the United Nations Security Council has so far refused to sign off on intervention until ECOWAS provides a workable plan of action.

The growing presence of AQIM in the region has led the United States to consider unilateral strikes in the aftermath of last month’s attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

By Dara McLeod, Director of Communications, Refugees International

MOGADISHU, SOMALIA — Yesterday, I met with a man in Mogadishu whose business was the target of a suicide attack. Ahmed is a British-Somali who returned to the country in 2008 and went on to open up several popular restaurants. Last Thursday, two suicide bombers walked into one of those restaurants and killed 15 of Ahmed’s patrons and staff.

Ahmed’s story is a perfect illustration of the current state of affairs in Mogadishu. Since the departure of Al Shabaab last year, Mogadishu has changed for the better. Businesses like Ahmed’s are springing up and doing well, and the unexpected result of the recent presidential election has given people here some hope that the corruption that has plagued this nation is perhaps starting to lose its stranglehold.

But last week’s attack at Ahmed’s restaurant also demonstrates just how precarious life still can be in this town formerly described as “the world’s most dangerous city.” And there is no group of people more vulnerable than the city’s tens of thousands of internally displaced.

Drive through the streets of Mogadishu, and you’ll see that almost every place where there is an empty plot of land, there are the makeshift shelters of internally displaced people (IDPs). Some IDPs have been here for decades, others more recently arrived — the victims of ongoing conflict and last year’s famine. All came to Mogadishu seeking shelter, only to be further victimized by a system that prevents them from getting the assistance they so desperately need.

Most of Mogadishu’s IDP settlements are run by so-called “gatekeepers” — de facto camp managers who control access to the camps as well as exit from them. Some estimates suggest that there are as many as 1,100 gatekeepers in Mogadishu. There are a few examples of “good” gatekeepers, who provide a measure of security for the IDPs in their care. However, there are far more examples of gatekeepers who are using the IDPs as commodities in a complex matrix that includes local government officials, private militias, and the international aid community.

It is no secret that Somalia suffers from an institutional diversion of aid. Many of the gatekeepers are a large part of this. For example, to live in the camps, IDPs often have to pay “rent” to the gatekeepers — usually in the form of a portion of the international assistance that they receive. There are stories of IDPs wanting to leave the camps, but who are unable to do so because their rent is always in arrears. There are other stories of entire camps of IDPs being sold from one gatekeeper to another. The system has been described by some as a kind of slavery. And it can make it incredibly difficult for those IDPs to break out of this cycle of obligation and re-establish their own livelihoods. Here is video of an IDP camp in Mogadishu we recently filmed:

Read more

Our guest blogger is Alice Thomas, Climate Displacement Program Manager at Refugees International.

Poverty and malnutrition are chronic in the countries of the Sahel, a region in northern Africa stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, and the surrounding area is hardly a paragon of political stability. This year, however, a confluence of man-made and natural disasters has sent the region into a tailspin.

As a result of erratic rainfall and high food prices, 18 million people across the Sahel do not have enough food coming into the final months of the “lean season” — the period before harvest when food stocks are nearly depleted. A shocking one million children under five are at risk of starvation.

Compounding the crisis, the eruption of violence in Mali resulting in a military coup earlier this year has displaced over 440,000 people. Many have fled to those areas hardest hit by the nutrition crisis, where food and water are scarce and where local populations themselves are struggling.

Although the Sahel’s dual crises have been going on for months, so far the U.S. and its allies have largely shied away from any major intervention. The U.S., which long viewed Mali as a model of democracy in West Africa, was caught flat-footed as events took place. Despite millions of dollars in development aid and counter-terrorist programs, the U.S. failed to grasp the extent to which the country’s weak institutions, and the lack of public support for its civilian government, made it vulnerable to threats and shifting power dynamics unfolding across the region.

The U.S. has now suspended development aid to Mali given the lack of a legitimate government, and it has limited humanitarian assistance to the north due to continuing insecurity. But allowing the situation to languish risks both the further loss of control to Islamic extremists, and the lives of innocent civilians caught in the middle. On the other hand, a military intervention — as proposed by regional bloc ECOWAS — brings its own perils, including further escalation of the conflict and curtailment of humanitarian aid.

Going forward, establishing security in Mali surely remains a priority for the Obama administration, but a more comprehensive strategy is needed. On Wednesday, the day after President Obama’s speech to the General Assembly, the U.N. will convene a high-level meeting on the Sahel — and it is here where the U.S. should set out a clear, comprehensive plan. In particular, the following three points should be addressed:

Read more