Mr. Church,
Thank you for the response. That clears up a lot of my questions regarding what is going on in the DRC. Elections certainly do not equal democracy. I've been looking into how and why MONUC seemed to, as you put it "lost their way" in 2004 and 2005. I am very interested in this; please let me know if you can point me in the right direction. I will read your article regarding the weapons cycle.

Let me answer your questions one by one

You are correct. I have written that there is rising expectation and this could lead to violence. This could be avoided if Kabila runs a good government, establish the rule of law, control his army which is guilty of massive human rights violations and this is ongoing and not just the past, stop corrupt which is rampant. The decision and choice is his. I am not saying this will happen tomorrow but it will happen in a five year time frame.

Now to the second question. I think the events speak for themselves but more importantly it is the position that elections are not the end result. My point is that contrary to American thinking elections do not create good governance. Elections do not bring rule of law. Elections are not the measurement of a state. The truth is there was plenty of time to disarm the militias (over three years) Most of the money was stolen and the program was not completed.

MONUC for the last 18 months has been very active in enforcing the arms embargo. Weapons coming into the country is not the problem. It is the weapons already inside the country and the behavior of the FARDC that is the problem. By now I am willing to say there are three MONUCs. There is the MONUC that did a superb job arranging the ceasefire and getting the foreign troops out of the DRC. Job well done in a classic UN mission.
There is the MONUC that sort of lost its way in 2004 and part of 2005 timeframe. They were not enforcing the Arms Embargo and not patrolling and were not a robust as the third MONUC.
Then the third MONUC is again been doing a great job from mid-2005 to present. It has mounted a robust military mission. It patrolled constantly and developed a mobil base strategy that they patrolled from and they conducted destabilization missions and in Ituri actively engaged the enemy--stood their ground and fought. My hat is off the MONUC peacekeepers for their bravery and dedication.
Disarmament fell to the FARDC and it was supposed to be by pacific means.
You might want to ready my article on the African Weapons Cycle to understand this view. We need to get the weapons out of the congo.

Finally, all the countries must disarm. Again pay note to my Africa Weapons Cycle article. We must also stop countries and like France and the US from dumping weapons into proxy nations like Chad and Ethiopia. The more weapons you have in Africa the more we have to mop up.

It is appropriate for African nations to arm themselves but the point is that France and the US are supporting proxy states with on going rebellions because of bad governance or other issues. Deby is a good example in Chad as is Ehtiopia. When these states burst or get overwhelmed because they are not legitimate states--meaning bad governance and back to the original question--they surely hold elections but they are not real elections. When these nations burst then the weapons France and the US has poured into flow out of the state into the region and we have more weapons to clean up.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Mr. Church,
If you are the director of the Great Lakes Center, then your institute has pointed to the rising expectations of democracy in the DRC as a possible source of future conflict, correct? Would you really have advocated for more time to develop good governance and disarm the various hostile factions before elections? Hasn't MONUC been actively enforcing the arms-trade embargo under its Chapter VII-mandate for the last five or six years? How viable is the prospect of total disarmmament of all hostile factions in the region? Haven't the Congolese waited long enough (40 years) for democratic elections? Of course everyone should admit that their hands are blood-stained, but at a certain point you need to get democracy working and improve on it from there.

I respect the last comment however the real cause of the 1996 war, which led to the 1998 war, was the failure of the Mobutu government, the United Nations, and the international community to disarm the 80,000 strong genocide forces that the French had allowed to run behind their protection into the East Congo (Zaire).

I think we need to recognize that there is no proof that without the presence of these forces that the new Rwandan government would have invaded Zaire. If you can provide proof then please provide.

Once these forces were safely protected in refugee camps and the genocide forces were feed by the UN they were allowed to set up a government in exile that then conducted attacks against Rwanda. This is documented by the UN and all but the most prejudiced observers.

The Congolese are not innocent bystanders here. To this day, Kabila has refused to disarm the genocide forces that occupy his country and until 18 months ago his army the FARDC provided support to soldiers that slaughtered over 800,000 Rwandans.

I am impartial here but we can not have progress in the region until all parties admit their role in this disaster that has cost too many lives.

I cannot believe the factual, and denominational mistakes in an article from such a great newspaper. This is not up to standards at all.

That said, I must disagree with a previous commentator, that the proxies of Rwanda and Uganda may have become political parties officially, after the Inter-Congolese Dialogue (like Mr Bemba's MLC, and Ruberwa's RCD), but they do not cease to be proxies (much to my people's dismay). Additionally, the homegrown movements are direct results of the war generated by Rwanda and Uganda (and to be fair Kabila the father and his allies) between 1998 and 2003. I refuse to see Rwanda and Uganda being exhonerated so easily from their crimes in the Congo.

I find it highly unbelievable that this article was written by the authors that are named.
First, it was Joseph Kabila who won not Laurence (Laurent was the father and they did not even get his name correct)
Second, the proxy war comment is about four years old and totally misleading. The current militia and armed groups in the Congo fall into three groups.
There are home ground militia like we find in Ituri. Then there are the rebel groups that want to oppose Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda who use the the Congo as a base. They are not proxies at all. Finally there are the 1994 genocide forces that are called Rwandan Rebels who are usually confused by writers like the current authors as Rwandans but really are wanted by the Rwandan government.

The problem with the Congo is that the UN and the international community put elections--just like the US did in Iraq--ahead of building good governance and disarmament.
Something times me that AP reporting (if possible) and Oxford education has reached a new time low.

I live and work in the region. I am director of the Great Lakes Centre for Strategic Studies.

The results are false, fore Bemba asked for "legal avenues" in the polls, therefore stating that that European support of Kabila was an unfair trial. The people, and nothing but the people should decide.

The country would transform into a peaceful state. I have been interacting with locals in DRC and found that they are most concious of having peace. The world must support this mission.

The comments reported are true, however, its a big task in hand for MONUC to ensure that level of voilence is restricted to minimum. The PNC is doing its job. There seems to be urgent requirement to increase the security forces to discipline the youth. There is a requirement to educate people on peace.