General information
Current Name: Government of DR Congo (Zaire)
Current Name full English: Government of Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire)
Current Name full native language: Government of République démocratique du Congo (Zaïre)
Original Name: Government of DR Congo (Zaire)
Original Name full English: Government of Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire)
Original Name full native language: Government of République démocratique du Congo (Zaïre)
Actor Chronology
This section contains information about (if applicable) group splinters, name changes, and alliances according to the UCDP definitions of these concepts.
UCDP has not recorded any Chronology Activities involving this group.
Conflict issues
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFDL
Conflict Goal Issues: The AFDL (Alliance des forces démocratiques pour la libération du Congo) was a rebel alliance consisting of four groups: ADP (Alliance democratique des peoples), CNRD (Conseil national de resistance pour la démocratie), MRLZ (Mouvement révolutionnaire pour la libération du Zaire) and the PRP (Parti révolution populaire). The ADP was composed of ethnic Tutsi Banyamulenge who President Mobutu had increasingly marginalized, which joined forces with other anti-Mobutu groups in 1996. The alliance formed due to the common goal of overthrowing the Mobutu government, and did not share any other ideological or political goals. The first year in which the group pronounced conflict goal issues was 1996, when it demanded citizenship for the Banyamulenge, called for the end of Mobutu’s presidency and corruption, and called for democracy. AFDL’s conflict goal issues remained centered on the topic of removing Mobutu and his government from power, although the specific issues coded varied over the two years the group was active. The rebel alliance called for an end to Mobutu’s rule, and the dissolution of Mobutu’s government and parliament. It called for democracy and elections, and also refused to share power with Mobutu or to integrate its forces with the Zairean army. AFDL had two main conflict goal issues: corruption and the ousting Mobutu as the head of executive, and opposing the sharing of power in the executive. These two issues were the only ones coded for more than one year, and their centrality was demonstrated by this quote from the leader Laurent Kabila “The aim of the alliance is to put an end to Mobutu’s autocratic rule and to banish his corruption from Zaire.”
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The first two conflict dynamics issues were pronounced by the AFDL in 1996. It stated that it did not want France meddling in the country, and that it would fight them if they came as soldiers. The rebel alliance also called for the international community to send troops to neutralize the members of the former Rwandan army (ex-FAR) and the Interahamwe militia, who were hiding in the refugee camps in Zaire after perpetrating the genocide in Rwanda. AFDL’s conflict dynamics issues generally remained the same over time. They were predominantly focused on the problem of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe hiding in the Hutu refugee camps in Zaire. The rebel alliance called for foreign forces to remove those perpetrators from the camps, and also called for evacuating all the refugees from central Zaire. AFDL’s main conflict dynamics issue was IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, as it was the only issue coded for both the years the alliance was active. This issue was illustrated by a 1997 statement: “The refugees are not our enemy. These people have been taken hostage by members of the former Rwandan army and militants who are killers. They are being used as a human shield. We have asked the international community to disarm these killers and remove them from the camp. If this is not done we’ll have to find our own solution.”
Conflict Resolution Issues: The first conflict resolution issue stated by the AFDL was in 1996, when it called for a ceasefire. The leader Kabila stated “We hope that the unilateral ceasefire will be respected by the Zairean side. If they are against this decision, then combat will restart immediately.” During the two years the AFDL was active, it changed its position on both ceasefire and negotiations. In 1996 it called for a ceasefire, yet in the following year it dropped this issue when it stated “There is no question of accepting a cease-fire!” The alliance instead called for negotiations with Mobutu and demanded specific structures to those negotiations, for example that they preferably take place in South Africa. However, later that year Kabila opposed negotiations when he stated “The South African initiative is about transfer of power. When he (Mobutu) is ready for this, I shall go and attend a short day’s ceremony on the peaceful transfer of power. There will be no protracted negotiations with Mobutu, never, never. Maybe we have been misunderstood. The issue is about transfer of power otherwise we march on to Kinshasa.” Based on the statements located by the project, AFDL did not have any main conflict resolution issues. The group’s change in position on the few issues coded during the short two-year period implies that they do not meet the project’s criteria to be considered main issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Citizenship reforms, Constitutional issues, Corruption, CPS: Democracy, Executive power-sharing, Hold elections, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Oust parliament, Rule of law
Conflict Dynamics Issues: DFI: Removal of foreign influence, IFI: Foreign mediator, IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Sanctions, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Resolution Issues: Call for ceasefire, Call for negotiations, Opposition to negotiations, Structure of negotiations
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Conflict Goal Issues: MLC (Mouvement pour la Libération du Congo) was a rebel group that formed in November 1998 in opposition to the new president of the DRC: Laurent Kabila. The first year in which conflict goal issues were coded for the group was 1999, when it called for overthrowing Kabila, the unbanning of political activity, and implementing democracy in the DRC. MLC pronounced several different conflict goal issues between 1999 and 2001. The calls for overthrowing Kabila, unbanning of political activity, and implementing democracy mentioned above were repeated in later years as well. In 2001, four new conflict goal issues were pronounced. These were calls for a new constitution, a new political order, power sharing in the executive, and democratic elections. MLC’s main conflict goal issue was civil rights, CPS: Democracy, and oust head of the executive, as these three issues were called for in multiple years. Leader Jean-Pierre Bemba, previously a millionaire businessman, stated in 1999 “I am fighting for fundamental political change. If democracy is implemented in this country I can go back to my business.” The following year he stated that “Mr Kabila could play no role in any future Congo government,” illustrating the demand of overthrowing the president.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The first year in which MLC pronounced a conflict dynamics issue was 1999, when the rebel leader Bemba urged President Kabila to release prisoners in order to prove his good faith. The group called for release of prisoners in 1999 and accused President Kabila of genocide in 2000. All of the other issues coded were in regards to the level of foreign involvement, concentrated in 2000-2001. All but one demanded an increase in foreign involvement, although the specific type of involvement varied from United Nations peacekeepers, international court, sanctions, to humanitarian aid. The exception was a call for the withdrawal of foreign troops by the five states who had forces present in the country. MLC’s main conflict dynamics issues were DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, and IFI: Use of foreign influence. Although the first one was only coded for one year, it was formulated in such a strong way that the goal appeared central to the group: “This is an ultimatum to Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia that if they do not pull out the same way Uganda has done, we do not see why we should be involved in the Lusaka peace agreement.” The other two issues were considered main issues as they were the only ones coded for multiple years. Although increased foreign forces may appear in contrast to the previous issue, they were compatible as this demand was directed at UN peacekeeping troops. In 2000 the group called for the use of foreign influence when it stated “The liberation movements in the Congo are convinced that only strong pressure and the support for the liberation struggle by the international community can instill sanity in Kabila in order to recognize and respect the Lusaka peace accord.”
Conflict Resolution Issues: The first year in which MLC pronounced a conflict resolution issue was 1998, when it opposed a declaration to end hostilities made by the presidents of Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the DRC in Paris. The conflict resolution issues pronounced by the rebel group were relatively similar over time. In addition to opposing the agreement in 1998 MLC opposed the Sirte agreement signed in April 1999, which excluded all of the rebel groups. However, the group (together with RCD) later issued various demands in relation to the 1999 Lusaka talks, such as calling for a ceasefire, specific structures of the negotiations, and national dialogue. The issues coded for 2000 and 2001 were concerned with implementation of the Lusaka peace accord, such as initiating the inter-Congolese dialogue. MLC’s main conflict resolution issues were national dialogue and peace agreement implementation, due to the formulation of these demands as well as their repetition over time. The demand for national dialogue was formulated even before the Lusaka accords, but it was also called for afterwards, as part of the group’s demands to implement the agreement. A 2000 statement illustrates both of these issues: “Kabila has violated the Lusaka peace agreement and he must be forced to respect it so that we can go to the inter-Congolese dialogue.”
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Civil rights, Constitutional issues, CPS: Democracy, Executive power-sharing, Hold elections, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Collective targeting: other group, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Foreign mediator, IFI: Humanitarian aid, IFI: International court/tribunal/investigation, IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Sanctions, IFI: Use of foreign influence, Release of prisoners
Conflict Resolution Issues: Accountability/prosecution/investigation; Call for ceasefire, Call for negotiations, National dialogue, Opposition to peace agreement, Peace agreement implementation, Structure of negotiations
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Conflict Goal Issues: RCD (Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie), also referred to as RCD-Goma, was a rebel group that formed in August 1998 in opposition to the new president of the DRC: Laurent Kabila. The RCD was a combination of various groups, including Kabila’s former AFDL supporters, many of which were ethnically Tutsi Banyamulenge, as well as Mobutuists. The first year in which it pronounced conflict goal issues was 1998 when it called for removing President Kabila from power, creating a democratic system, and blamed the regime for corruption. Generally, RCD’s conflict goal issues remained the same over time. These issues varied from enacting economic reforms to implementing federalism to respecting human rights. Some issues were coded for multiple years, such as demands for President Kabila’s removal due to corruption, and calls for democracy and good governance. RCD’s main conflict goal issues were CPS: Democracy and oust head of the executive, as they were consistently called for from 1998 to 2002. These issues are illustrated by the statement “The RCD is a structure of political and military actions aimed at dismantling the dictatorial regime of Mr. Kabila and establishing a democratic regime based on real popular legitimacy.”
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The first conflict dynamics issues were raised by RCD in 1998, when it called upon the international community to pressure foreign troops to leave the country as well as influence President Kabila to enter into negotiations with the rebel group. Nearly all of RCD’s conflict dynamics issues during all of the active years were calls for increased foreign involvement in the conflict, although the specific type of involvement varied. For example, the group called for an international court to try the government for crimes against humanity, for international sanctions against Kabila’s regime, and for international humanitarian aid. The conflict dynamics issue that does change over time is the group’s position on United Nations troops in the country, as the group both calls for and objects to the deployment of UN troops during 2000-2002. RCD’s main conflict dynamics issue was IFI: International court, due to the formulation of this demand as well as its repetition in multiple years. This issue was coded for 2000, 2001, and 2002, each time in regard to a different topic. In 2001, the group stated “We demand the establishment of an independent international commission to shed full light on the assassination” after being accused of orchestrating the assassination of President Kabila.
Conflict Resolution Issues: #Conflict Resolution Issues The first conflict resolution issue was pronounced by RCD in 1998, when the group called for negotiations. Leader Ernest Wamba dia Wamba stated “No military intervention will solve the problem in the long term. The Congolese have to sit around the table and talk out their problems.” Generally, RCD’s conflict resolution issues remained the same over time. The negotiations that took place during 1999 initially included all the states except the government of DRC, and excluded the RCD. The rebel group made various demands due to that ongoing process such as calling for negotiations, later dropping that demand, opposing the peace agreement, calling for a ceasefire, and denouncing the Kabila regime for violating the Lusaka ceasefire accords. The issues coded for the following years are mostly consequences of the Lusaka accords, as the group called for issues such as the implementation of the peace agreement and continued negotiations in the form of the inter-Congolese dialogue. RCD’s main conflict resolution issues were call for negotiations and accountability/prosecution, as they were called for consistently from 1998 to 2002. The group called for negotiations during four years, although it also dropped this call in two of those years. Despite this, the issue appeared to remain of high importance to the group as each time it was dropped it was subsequently called for again. The group also consistently called for accountability/prosecution, most often directed at the Kabila regime: “All these innocent people killed by Kabila and his militia. He is worse than (President) Milosevic (of former Yugoslavia) and should be prosecuted for these crimes.”
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Bureaucratic setup, Civil rights, Corruption, CPS: Democracy, Economic reforms, Executive power-sharing, Federalism, Freedom of expression, Human rights, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Public services, Restructure military forces, Rule of law, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Humanitarian aid, IFI: International court/tribunal/investigation, IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Sanctions, IFI: Use of foreign influence
Conflict Resolution Issues: Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Call for ceasefire, Call for implementation/abiding to ceasefire, Call for negotiations, National dialogue, Opposition to peace agreement, Peace agreement implementation, Recognition of wrongdoing, Structure of negotiations
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Conflict Goal Issues: CNDP (Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple), originally called CMDP, was a rebel group that formed in August 2005 in reaction to the outcome of the previous conflict in DRC. Former RCD General Laurent Nkunda felt that the Tutsi Banyamulenge were not sufficiently protected, especially in the process of integrating the various armed groups into the new national army, FARDC. The first year in which CNDP pronounced conflict goal issues was 2005, when it declared that President Joseph Kabila’s government was corrupt and must be overthrown, and for the new national army to be reformed. CNDP’s conflict goal issues were generally centered on the same topics during all of its active years, which were the process of integration into the FARDC, overthrowing the government, and protecting the rights of the Banyamulenge. After calling for reform of the FARDC in 2005, the group called for integration of its fighters into the army in 2006. However, this issue was dropped later that year due to fears of discrimination due to their Banyamulenge ethnicity. The following year Nkunda again called for and then later dropped this issue of integration. After General Bosco Ntaganda replaced Nkunda as leader in January 2007, CNDP again called for integration into the FARDC. There were also a few issues coded for just one year, such as calls for federalism, public services and freedom of movement. CNDP’s main conflict goal issues were oust full executive and civil rights/participation, as these issues were coded for multiple years. The issue coded most often was security sector integration, but because the group both called for and dropped this issue multiple times it is not considered a main issue. Nkunda stated “what we want is an assurance that our people are protected and that they enjoy their rights like any other Congolese citizen” in 2007, illustrating the civil rights/participation issue.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The first year in which a conflict dynamics issue is coded for CNDP was 2004, one year before the group’s first stated goal of incompatibility according to UCDP data. The group identified the threat of collective targeting against their ethnic community as the issue: “They said their action was meant to protect the Banyamulenge community whom, they claimed was being attacked.” Generally, CNDP’s conflict dynamics issues remained the same over time. The group repeatedly identified collective targeting of the Banyamulenge community as a threat, called for the return of Banyamulenge refugees in exile, and for the withdrawal of FDLR (a Hutu extremist group) from eastern DRC. Four other, yet related, issues were coded for one year each: the repatriation of Rwandan Hutus residing in eastern DRC, the blaming of Zimbabwean and DRC soldiers for atrocities and abuses, the release of political prisoners, and the demand directed at the FARDC to remove roadblocks in North Kivu province. CNDP’s main conflict dynamics issues were collective targeting/collective security: ethnic, return of refugees/IDPs, and DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, due to their formulation and continuity over time. These issues were interrelated, demonstrated by the CNDP’s statement “The FDLR are known throughout the world as a negative force and it is not acceptable for such a force to oppress our people. For us, there is nothing to negotiate about the FDLR’s departure. They must leave,” which identifies the FDLR as the threat that oppresses the Banyamulenge. The issue of return of refugees is illustrated by this quote from Nkunda regarding the 50,000 Congolese Tutsi (Banyamulenge) refugees in Rwanda: “Let back our people and let them be accepted as Congolese. It is not right if Kabila says no. We are soldiers. We are going to fight.”
Conflict Resolution Issues: The first year in which the CNDP pronounced a conflict resolution issue was 2004, one year before the group exists in UCDP data. Nkunda called for accountability for a massacre of Banyamulenge in Burundi, demonstrated by: “Nkunda told IRIN on Wednesday that the massacre was “planned genocide” and said he would act unless the DRC government arrested the “Hutu rebels” who were responsible. “We cannot wait to be exterminated (…) We are going to solve it by means of a gun unless the government acts now.”” In addition to 2004, accountability/prosecution was coded again for 2006, when the rebel group called for an investigation into war crimes committed in DRC. CNDP first called for negotiations with the government in 2006, and continued to do so during the rest of its active years. However, during 2008 the group at one point opposed negotiations in protest of UN accusations that it had massacred civilians. It later dropped this opposition and again called for negotiations. The group also twice called for amnesties and ceasefires between 2007 and 2009. CNDP’s main conflict resolution issue was call for negotiations, as this was the issue called for most often. Even though the group also opposed negotiations in 2008, this issue was dropped after just one week and the group continued to call for negotiations afterwards, demonstrating a return to its original demand. This issue is illustrated by a 2008 article: “Nkunda’s National Congress for the Defence of the Congolese People ( CNDP ) demanded talks with the government.”
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Civil rights, Corruption, Federalism, Freedom of movement, Oust full executive, Public services, Restructure military forces, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Removal of foreigners, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, Military conduct, Release of prisoners, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Resolution Issues: Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Amnesties, Call for ceasefire, Call for negotiations, Opposition to negotiations, Recognition of wrongdoing
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Conflict Goal Issues: Bundu dia Kongo, Union of the Bakongo people/Kingdom of Kongo, (BDK) was a secessionist rebel group fighting for the restoration of areas previously belonging to the Kongo Kingdom from the 15th century to the Bakongo ethnic group, which they believed had legitimate claim to the kingdom and its lands. The group emerged in 1986 aiming to liberate the areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo – Zaire (DR Congo-Zaire). The first interpreted statement from BDK was from 1995, when the group stated its intentions to establish an independent nation in line with the Kongo Kingdom and called for the establishment of a confederation to establish the “United States of Africa”. In 1998, the issue of independence for Kongo from the rest of the DR Congo was reemphasized, calling for “the independence of Kongo provinces from the rest of the country”. When the conflict emerged in 2006, BDK once again reemphasized the issue of independence and also began calling for the government of DR Congo to be overthrown.
As the conflict progressed, BDK raised several new conflict issues. The group continuously reemphasized the issue of independence throughout the entire conflict. BDK began accusing the government of corruption and called for the ousting of the local governor who would be replaced with a “new governor and vice-governor loved by the Kongo people.” Towards the end of the conflict, BDK began heavily emphasizing its intentions to establish a “New Central Africa” which would be a confederation of ancient African states. On singular instances throughout the conflict, the group also called for citizenship reforms, protection of cultural and religious rights, economic reforms, executive power-sharing, elections, ousting of the Congolese leadership, provision of public services, executive and judicial reform, and restrictions on cultural rights of people. These issues were, however, not particularly heavily emphasized.
The main conflict goal issue of BDK was the establishment of an independent state of Kongo in line with historic borders of the Kongo Kingdom. This issue was continuously and frequently stated with heavy emphasis and became a foundational issue for the group influencing many of its other issues.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: In 2006, BDK stated its first conflict dynamics issues when it called for the removal of foreigners from the Boma region. This was directed at non-native people, which likely meant non-Bakongo people from the area.
This issue was not explicitly reemphasized again until the end of the conflict, when statements calling for the removal of non-originals, Rwandans, and others were made in 2016 and 2017. In 2008, the group began accusing the National Police, under the control of the Congolese government, of conducting massacres against members of the group and against civilians. Based on these, BDK called for international investigations and judicial proceedings to be conducted into abuses. The group also stated that its members and supporters were victims of collective targeting due to their political views and adherences.
The main issue for BDK was the issue of removal of foreigners. This issue was prevalent from the beginning to the end of the conflict and was frequently emphasized in communications.
Conflict Resolution Issues: Whilst no conflict resolution issues were interpreted in, or prior to, the first year of conflict, BDK called for negotiations with the government in 2008 and 2017 and called for investigations into alleged massacres in 2017. These were the only interpreted conflict resolution issues expressed by the group, and whilst calls for negotiations were made in two instances, the issue was not heavily emphasized enough for it to be considered a central issue to the group.
Type of conflict issues: The coded conflict issues for this group are: Conflict Goal Issues: Autonomy, Citizenship reforms, Confederation/union, Corruption, CPS: Other/undefined system, Cultural rights, Economic reforms, Electoral fraud, Executive power-sharing, Hold elections, Independence, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Oust local executive, Public services, Reform executive structure, Reform judicial system, Religious rights, Restrictions on cultural rights, Unification of states
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: political, DFI: Removal of foreigners, IFI: International court/tribunal/investigation
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Call for negotiations
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - APCLS
Conflict Goal Issues: Alliance des patriotes pour un Congo libre et souverain, Alliance of the People for a Free and Sovereign Congo, (APCLS) originally emerged as a militia supporting the government in 2008, although the alliance quickly disappeared in 2012, when the group instead became active in a conflict with the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The group was largely made up of people from the Hunde ethnicity and was characterized by anti-refugee and ethnonationalist sentiments. During 2012, the group stated one conflict goal issue, stating its intentions to resist government armed forces (FARDC) and that the group “were fighting to overthrow the government.”
As the conflict progressed, APCLS did not explicitly reiterate its intentions to oust the government of Congo, although similar issues were indicated. In 2013, the group stated its willingness to reintegrate with the FARDC “to fight with them against the forces coming from outside of the country.”, calling for security sector power-sharing. In 2014, APCLS stated its intentions to protect the rights of Congolese people, whilst stating its opposition to recognizing citizenship of ethnic Tutsis in Congo. As no issues were continuously stated for the coded conflict, no main conflict goal issue was interpreted for the group.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: During the year of its emergence, APCLS stated one conflict dynamics issue as the group called for the military to grant the group ammunitions through negotiating a deal with the FARDC.
No issues pertaining to military conduct were explicitly stated by the APCLS for the continued duration of conflict. Instead, the group began calling for the removal of foreign influence and foreign military forces, alluding to another rebel group M23, who had previously been active in Congo but now resided in Rwanda. APCLS also stated its resistance to Rwandans and Westerners who were attempting to divide the DRC. In 2014, the group also stated its goal to protect the Hunde people, and accused South African soldiers, which were placed in Congo as part of a UN stabilization mission, of coming to the country ‘to kill the population, not to protect them’ and that “They [South African forces] killed many civilians when they attacked us.” In 2015, the group reiterated its aims to protect the Hunde people from ethnically motivated violence from “opposing forces, including rapes, abductions, burning of homes, illegal detention, torture, mistreatment, and forced recruitment of children.” The group also called for the removal of Rwandan people and Congolese Tutsis from the DRC.
The main conflict dynamics issues of APCLS was the removal of foreign influence and forces. This issue was continuously stated by the group for large parts of the conflict and was frequently stated with heavy emphasis.
Conflict Resolution Issues: APCLS were interpreted as stating one conflict resolution issue during its existence, when it in 2014 called for negotiations with the government: “if they [the government of DRC] want us to dialogue I am ready as a Congolese national who fights for the rights of my people.”
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Citizenship reforms, Civil rights, Oust full executive, Restrictions on civil rights, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Removal of foreigners, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, Military conduct
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Call for negotiations
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Conflict Goal Issues: Coalition nationale du peuple pour la souveraineté du Congo, National Coalition of the People for the Sovereignty of the Congo, (CNPSC), originally known as Maï Maï Réformé and later renamed PARC-FAAL, was a Bembe rebel group in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo). The group originally emerged to protect the Bembe ethnic group from Tutsi militants, but later changed its scope to fight for the ousting of the Congolese President Joseph Kabila. Whilst the group was established in 2007, its first conflict goal issue was stated in 2009, when the group called for recognition as a political party aiming to reconstruct and reconcile DR Congo. This issue was reemphasized in 2010 and was joined with calls for potential integration of CNPSC, then Maï Maï Réformé, into the armed forces.
As the conflict against the government of DR Congo emerged, the group reemphasized its willingness to be integrated into the Congolese army. CNPSC, then PARC-FAAL, also continuously called for recognition as a legitimate political party. Towards the end of the coded conflict, the group also began calling for a restructuring of the military forces to incorporate the forces of CNPSC and to purge the Congolese army of its senior officers, claiming that these were Rwandan. The group also called for the establishment of democracy in DR Congo and for elections to be held, for economic reform and labor rights reform, and for the ousting of President Kabila and his cabinet.
The main conflict goal issues of CNPSC were the integration of its armed forces into the Congolese military and for the group to be recognized as a political party. These issues were continuously stated for a large part of the conflict and heavily emphasized, particularly in the beginning of conflict.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Whilst no issues were interpreted in the first few years of CNPSC’s existence, several conflict dynamics issues were raised as the conflict emerged. In the beginning of the conflict, the group stated its mission and actions were to defend local ethnic groups, particularly the Bembe people, from ethnic violence from both government and foreign forces, mainly Tutsi militias. Throughout the conflict, the group also called for the removal of foreign influence, frequently stating that the Congolese executive government and military command was being controlled by the government of Rwanda. On singular instances, the group also called for the release of political prisoners and supporters of the movement, and for the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces in DR Congo with claims of them supporting the government.
The main conflict dynamics issue expressed by CNPSC was the removal of Rwandan influence. This issue was continuously stated with heavy emphasis throughout the conflict and became a foundational issue for the group’s existence.
Conflict Resolution Issues: In 2010, CNPSC called upon the government of DR Congo to adhere to peace accords that were signed with the group earlier in the year. In 2014, the group also called for a general amnesty for members of the group and stated his commitment to disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration processes which had been agreed upon with the government.
Type of conflict issues: The coded conflict issues for this group are: Conflict Goal Issues: Corruption, CPS: Democracy, Economic reforms, Hold elections, Labor rights, Oust head of the executive, Recognition as a political party, Restructure military forces, Revenues from natural resources, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, Release of prisoners
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Amnesties, DDR issues, Peace agreement implementation
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Conflict Goal Issues: Mouvement du 23-Mars, March 23 Movement (M23), was a Congolese rebel group mostly made up of Tutsis fighting against the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo). The group emerged in 2012, aiming to establish the agreement of March 23rd, 2009, to a large extent consisting of previous members of CNDP who were not integrated into the Congolese armed forces. During 2012, M23 stated several conflict goal issues. The group called for the ousting of the Congolese government, specifically emphasizing the overthrowing of President Joseph Kabila. The group also accused the government of corruption and electoral fraud and called for electoral reform to be implemented. M23 also called for the establishment of security sector power-sharing and labor rights in accordance with the March 23 agreement which would integrate its forces into the Congolese army. The cultural rights of the Congolese people were also emphasized to protect minority groups from mistreatment, and economic reform was suggested to improve the living conditions of the people. Finally, the group called for the establishment of law and order in Congo.
In its second, and last coded, year of existence, M23 reemphasized accusations of electoral fraud and once again called for the integration of its forces into the Congolese army. The group also called for the ousting of parliament through the dissolution of the Congolese national assembly and for recognition as a political party.
The main conflict goal issues of M23 were the establishment of security sector power-sharing and the accusations of electoral fraud. More than just being stated in both coded years of conflict, these issues were also central to the group as the failed fulfillment of the March 23 agreement was blamed on electoral fraud of the Kabila regime, which is the very cause for the group’s existence.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: M23 stated three conflict dynamics issues in 2012, during which it accused the Congolese government of poor governance and human rights abuses, called for the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) to establish a monitoring mission in East Congo, and called for the release of political prisoners detained by the government.
In 2013, the only stated conflict dynamics issue was a call towards the Congolese government to allow refugees to return to their homes. As no issues were interpreted in both 2012 and 2013, no conflict dynamics issue was considered especially central to M23, and no main issue was stated.
Conflict Resolution Issues: In 2012, M23 called for negotiations to be held with the government and for national dialogue to be encouraged and facilitated with “all stakeholders such as lawmakers, civil society groups, M23, to sit down together with Congolese people and talk over issues affecting the country”. The group also called for peace agreement implementation, alluding to the March 23 agreement.
None of these issues were explicitly reemphasized in 2013, although the group stated three new conflict resolution issues. M23 called for a ceasefire with the government and for a total amnesty to be implemented for all members of the group. The group also called for the disarmament of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda FDLR as a precondition for further negotiations to be held.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Corruption, CPS: Other/undefined system, Cultural rights, Economic reforms, Electoral fraud, Electoral reform, Labor rights, Law and order, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Oust parliament, Recognition as a political party, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, IFI: International monitoring, Release of prisoners, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Amnesties, Call for ceasefire, Call for negotiations, DDR issues, National dialogue, Peace agreement implementation
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kata Katanga
Conflict Goal Issues: Kata Katanga, Cut off Katanga, was a separatist rebel group fighting against the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) to establish an independent state of Katanga. The group emerged in 2013, during which it stated several conflict goal issues. The group called for increased autonomy for the Katanga region, citing unequal distribution of natural resource revenues as a main cause. Later in 2013, Kata Katanga increased its demands when fighters of the group marched into the town of Lubumbashi and raised an old flag of independence of Katanga.
In 2014 and 2015, the issue of independence was reemphasized by Kata Katanga, calling for the secession of the province from DR Congo. The issue of independence is also considered the main conflict goal issue of Kata Katanga.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The project coded no statements from Kata Katanga pertaining to conflict dynamics issues.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The project coded no statements from Kata Katanga pertaining to conflict resolution issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Autonomy, Independence, Revenues from natural resources
Conflict Dynamics Issues:
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila
Conflict Goal Issues: The Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila was a rebel group formed by Pastor Paul Joseph Mukungubila that emerged in 2013 with the intent of ousting President Joseph Kabila from power. The group emerged from the politico religious group ‘Ministère de la restauration à partir de l'Afrique noire’ (Ministry of Restoration from Black Africa) who initiated calls for removal of Rwandan influence into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). During the year of its emergence, the Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila released statements pertaining to three conflict goal issues. Mukungubila, the group’s leader, called for the resignation of the President following a wave of deadly violence. He also called for a cessation of national resource plundering in the DRC, and for the adherence to laws of sovereignty which the group claimed were being breached through allowing a foreigner to be president, as Kabila was born in Tanzania.
In the following year, none of these issues were reemphasized by the group or its leader. Instead, new issues regarding conflict goals were stated. Mukungubila, in exile, called for the human rights of Congolese people to be respected. Following their leader’s arrest in 2014, the group called for his release, and for his freedom of expression and freedom of movement to be respected.
As no issues were continuously nor frequently stated, no main conflict goal issue was interpreted for the Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: During the first year of conflict, the Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila released statements pertaining to abuses committed against civilians in the DRC, blaming these on Rwandan influence. Following this, the group called for the removal of foreign influence, military forces, and citizens, particularly referring to the removal of Rwandan civilians and soldiers and Rwandan influence. The group also called upon the international community for political support and influence to support Mukungubila: “You put an end to Hitler's work because it was abominably inhuman with the 6 million Holocaust. The Congo has reached and crossed this macabre threshold without arousing any pity from you International Community.” Finally, the group also called for the release of political prisoners associated with the group.
During the second, and final, year of coded conflict, the group reaffirmed its calls for atrocities against civilians, calling the aftermath of the December 30th attacks on Kinshasa a massacre on civilians. Furthermore, the group reaffirmed its stance on releasing political prisoners, now including its leader Mukungubila. The group also called upon the assistance of a foreign mediator, particularly the Pope, to assist in mediation, as well as for international criminal investigations to be held into the conduct of the Congolese military.
As allegations of atrocities against civilian populations as well as calls for the release of political prisoners were continuous through the two years of conflict, and received heavy emphasis during this time, these are to be considered the main conflict dynamics issues of the Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila.
Conflict Resolution Issues: During the first year of conflict, the Forces of Paul Josheph Mukungubila stated one conflict resolution issue, when they expressed opposition to the signing of any peace agreements with the allegedly Rwandan-supported group M23.
During the second year of conflict, the group released statements pertaining to several new conflict resolution issues. They called for an investigation to establish accountability for abuses that occurred in the Congo, called for national, although not explicitly political, dialogue to be established, and for negotiations to be established with the assistance of the catholic church.
As no issues were mentioned during both conflict years, and no issues received particularly heavy emphasis, no issues were interpreted as more salient than others, and no main conflict dynamics issues were attributed for the Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila.
Type of conflict issues: The coded conflict issues for this group are: Conflict Goal Issues: Freedom of expression, Freedom of movement, Human rights, Oust head of the executive, Revenues from natural resources, Rule of law
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Removal of foreigners, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Foreign mediator, IFI: International court/tribunal/investigation, IFI: Political support, IFI: Use of foreign influence, Release of prisoners
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Accountability/prosecution/investigation, National dialogue, Opposition to peace agreement, Structure of negotiations
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kamuina Nsapu
Conflict Goal Issues: Kamuina Nsapu was a Luba rebel group fighting for the decolonization of the Kasaï region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) from the Congolese state, which the group believed to be an occupying force. During 2016, the first year of conflict of Kamuina Nsapu, the group stated three conflict goal issues, calling for the protection of cultural rights and cultural heritage sites from Congolese security forces in the state. The group also called for the ousting of the government of DR Congo, calling upon traditional leaders to revolt against the state.
In the following year of conflict, none of these issues were explicitly reiterated. Rather than ousting the full government of DR Congo, Kamuina Nsapu instead called for the ousting of the Congolese President Joseph Kabila: “Kabila must leave power because he does not know how to rule this country.” The group also called for increased local autonomy for the Kasaï region and for regional reform pertaining to public services and local economy of the region. As no issue was explicitly stated in both of the coded years, no main conflict goal issue was interpreted for Kamuina Nsapu.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: In 2016, Kamuina Nsapu stated two conflict dynamics issues, calling for the removal of Congolese forces and alleged foreign mercenaries, both of which the group saw as foreign forces. The group also accused government forces of harassing the Congolese civilian population and forcefully removing them from their homes, indicating accusations of abuses against civilians.
In 2017, the group called for the release of detained militants and civilians related to the group.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The only interpreted conflict resolution issue pronounced by Kamuina Nsapu was stated in 2017, when the group called upon the government to rebuild and repair damaged infrastructure which was destroyed during the conflict.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Autonomy, Cultural rights, Economic reforms, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Protection of cultural heritage, Public services
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, Release of prisoners
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Compensation/restoration
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MNR
Conflict Goal Issues: Mouvement National des Révolutionnaires, National Movement for the Revolution, (MNR) was a rebel group active in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2017. The group emerged following a prison break and was made up of prisoners who began calling for the President to hold elections by the end of 2017. The group was not characterized by any ethnicity or religion, but united in its desire to overthrow the government. During its first, and only, year of existence, MNR made three statements pertaining to the group’s conflict goal issues. Initially, the group proclaimed its intent to force the government to hold elections, but these demands quickly changed to demanding the full surrender of the government and, particularly, the President. MNR called on “patriotic soldiers to dissociate themselves from the army which is still commanded by Rwandan officers and to join the forces of the Revolution in order to put an end to this regime of shame imposed on us for more than 20 years.” As MNR was only coded for one year, no further conflict goal issues were pronounced, and no main issue was interpreted.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: During the year of its existence, MNR pronounced several interpreted conflict dynamics issues. Initially, they emphasized allegations of abuses by pro-government militias who “sowed terror in the territory of Lubero, raping our mothers, looting our poor compatriots”, they quickly began calling for the removal of Rwandan troops from the country stating that these were the cause of the mistreatment of the Congolese population. Furthermore, the group released statements pertaining to the conduct of the military, stating that the army, in an effort to attack the rebel group, had damaged a school. Finally, they also called for the removal of foreign, specifically Rwandan, influence: “We want to liberate our country from foreign occupations of which it is a victim at all levels.”
Conflict Resolution Issues: The project coded no statements from MNR pertaining to conflict resolution issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Hold elections, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, Military conduct
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CMC
Conflict Goal Issues: Collectif des mouvements pour le changement, Coalition for movements of change, (CMC), also known by the name of its armed wing, the People’s Defense Forces (FDP), is an umbrella movement of several Hutu/Nyatura groups. The rebel group emerged in 2016 and became active in conflict against the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) claiming to represent the Hutu population in DR Congo. The project only coded groups until 2017, which is why only the years of 2016 and 2017 are coded. During its existence, the group stated several conflict goal issues. In 2016, CMC released its manifesto in which it stated its commitment to fight against any violation of the constitution, and against corruption, protect democratic ideals and values in Congo, hold elections, improve education standards, and reform the judicial system to make it transparent and independent. In 2017, all issues apart from education and judicial reform were reemphasized The group also called for the protection of civil rights, establishment of law and order, protection of natural resource revenue, and for the military forces to “stop acting under the orders of a commander whose mandate is obsolete”. The group also called for the removal of President Joseph Kabila as they considered his rule illegitimate.
The main conflict goal issues of CMC were the establishment of democracy and the ousting of the President. The issue of democracy was continuously stated throughout the coded conflict with heavy emphasis and was central to the group’s other issues. The issue of overthrowing the Kabila regime was only coded in 2017, but it became integral to the group’s existence and growth, which is why it is also considered a main conflict goal issue.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: During 2017, CMC stated several conflict dynamics issues, including accusations of the government of DR Congo of systematically abusing the civilian population. Most issues were, however, directed toward the international community. The group called for the removal of foreign influence, military support, and political support, calling for the withdrawal of all support that helped the Congolese government under Kabila. CMC also began calling for assistance from the international community through the implementation of sanctions, foreign pressure, and foreign military involvement against the government of DR Congo. The group also called for international community supportive of peace and democracy to “come and lend a hand” to the CMC.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The only interpreted conflict resolution issue expressed by CMC was coded in 2017 when the group pronounced its opposition to a peace agreement as the group claimed the agreement was not signed by people mandated by or representative of the Congolese people.
Type of conflict issues: The coded conflict issues for this group are: Conflict Goal Issues: Civil rights, Constitutional issues, Corruption, CPS: Democracy, Hold elections, Law and order, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Public services, Reform judicial system, Restructure military forces, Revenues from natural resources
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Withdrawal of military support, DFI: Withdrawal of political support, IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Sanctions, IFI: Support from diasporas/foreign fighters, IFI: Use of foreign influence
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Opposition to peace agreement
Government of Uganda - LRA
Conflict Goal Issues: The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), previously known as HSM II, UHSA, UCDA, and UDCM/A, was a Christian nationalist rebel group fighting against the government of Uganda as part of a divine cause believed to be guided by God to free the world from evil. The group emerged from the Acholi ethnic group, which it claimed to represent throughout its existence, although the group appeared to be more characterized by its Christian faith than its Acholi ethnicity. The group emerged in 1987, during which it stated several conflict goal issues. LRA called for civil-, cultural-, and language rights to be protected through increased national integration through intertribal marriages being promoted. The group also called for education to be provided to all people, and for “rehabilitation of the economy and rehabilitation of the country’s infrastructure”, calling for public services to be provided and economic reform to be implemented. LRA also called for increased power-sharing through incorporating people from Northern Uganda into the government, for elections to be held, for relations with neighboring states to be improved, and for the establishment of an “ethnically balanced army”. Finally, LRA also called for structural changes to the judicial and executive systems through the “creation of a Religious Affairs Ministry to ‘see an end to the use of witchcraft and sorcery by promotion of the Ten Commandments’.” During the same year, the group also called for the establishment of a politically independent judiciary.
As the conflict progressed, calls for changing the judicial system were frequently interpreted and the calls continued to be divided between regarding the establishment of a religious judiciary and an independent judiciary, although emphasis was mostly placed on the religious judiciary based around the ten commandments toward the latter stages of the conflict. Calls for executive power-sharing were made on occasion, although not with much continuity. Foreign policy reform was also raised by LRA, although statements became more focused on preventing Ugandan expansion into neighboring countries than building relations with other countries. Issues pertaining to the rights of citizens and their access to public services were not explicitly stated after 1987. Calls for military reform to become more representative of the people of northern Uganda were frequently interpreted, particularly toward the latter stages of the conflict. LRA also raised several new issues, although only those that were stated with emphasis and continuity will be mentioned here. From 1996 and onwards, the group began frequently and continuously calling for the establishment of multi-party democracy in Uganda. In some cases, particularly toward the end of the conflict, the group called for the federalization of the state to give more power to regional governance structures and ethnic groups. LRA also frequently stated its intentions to oust the sitting governments of Uganda throughout the conflict, although such statements were not interpreted after 2004. This also included several calls for the removal of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his cabinet.
The main conflict goal issues of LRA throughout the conflict was the establishment of a religious judicial system, the ousting of the Ugandan government, and the establishment of a proper multi-party democracy in Uganda. These issues were frequently stated throughout the conflict and were all heavily emphasized in many coded years.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: LRA stated one conflict dynamics issue during 1987, when the group accused the Ugandan army of military misconduct through violating human rights. As the conflict progressed, the issue of military conduct was frequently reemphasized, mainly through using civilians and civilian communities as human shields. The group also accused the military of initiating hostilities and of intentionally targeting Acholi civilians based on their ethnicity. Whilst LRA made numerous statements toward the international community to either support the group through aid, monitoring, and financial and political support, and for the withdrawal of foreign forces, influence, and financial support, the only issue that was continuously stated was the assistance of the international community in providing a third-party mediator to resolve the conflict and issues pertaining to the removal or changing of the mediator. Towards the end of the conflict, LRA made several statements calling for Acholi refugees to be allowed to return to their lands.
The main conflict dynamics issues of LRA were the issues of military misconduct, ethnically motivated atrocities, and the assistance with third-party mediation. The first two issues were central to the group throughout the entire conflict, and the issue of third-party mediation was particularly important towards the end of the conflict. The issue of mediation was also heavily contested, as calls for international assistance with mediation were joined with calls for the removal of appointed and suggested mediators under allegations of bias and corruption.
Conflict Resolution Issues: In 1987, LRA called for national dialogue to be promoted through a national conference being held which would be followed with general elections. This issue was only explicitly reemphasized once, in 2012. Throughout the conflict, the group made several statements calling for negotiations, and stating several demands and conditions for negotiations to be held, with the government. Towards the end of the conflict, these conditions were specifically focused on the presence of third-party mediators and assistance. Sparse statements were also made regarding accountability of military commanders and political figures for atrocities committed during the violence, calls for a general amnesty for its soldiers, and for ceasefires to be implemented.
The main conflict resolution issue of LRA was the issue of negotiations. This issue was continuously stated throughout the conflict with heavy emphasis and was clearly central to the group in attempting to resolve the conflict politically.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Basic needs, Change judicial system, Civil rights, Constitutional issues, Corruption, CPS: Democracy, CPS: Other/undefined system, Cultural rights, Destruction of cultural heritage, Economic reforms, Electoral fraud, Electoral reform, Executive power-sharing, Federalism, Foreign policy reform, Freedom of association, Gender rights, Hold elections, Human rights, Land reforms, Language rights, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Public services, Referendum, Reform executive structure, Reform judicial system, Reform parliament, Religious rights, Restriction of children’s rights, Restrictions on religious rights, Restructure military forces, Revenues from natural resources, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Call for collective targeting: other group, Atrocities and abuses, Call for collective targeting: religious, Collective targeting: ethnic, Collective targeting: political, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Removal of foreign mediator, DFI: Withdrawal of humanitarian aid, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, DFI: Withdrawal of military support, DFI: Withdrawal of political support, IFI: Financial support, IFI: Foreign mediator, IFI: Humanitarian aid, IFI: International monitoring, IFI: Military support, IFI: Political support, IFI: Recognition, IFI: Use of foreign influence, Military conduct, Return of refugees/IDPs, Revenge/vengeance
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Amnesties, Call for ceasefire, Call for negotiations, Compensation/restoration, DDR issues, National dialogue, Opposition to negotiations, Peace agreement implementation, Recognition of wrongdoing, Structure of negotiations, Structure of peace agreement
Government of Uganda - ADF
Conflict Goal Issues: The Alliance for Democratic Forces (ADF) was a Muslim rebel group that emerged in 1996 as a coalition of several previously existing rebel groups. Whilst the group has been active in Uganda for many years, severe underreporting has made the project incapable of adequately coding statements pertaining to conflict issues. Therefore, the only interpreted issue was the group’s official call for overthrowing the Ugandan government in 1997, which was coded for 1996.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The project coded no statements from ADF pertaining to conflict dynamics issues.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The project coded no statements from ADF pertaining to conflict resolution issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Oust full executive
Conflict Dynamics Issues:
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Government of Rwanda - FPR
Conflict Goal Issues: Before seizing control of the government in 1994, the FPR (Front patriotique rwandais, Rwandan Patriotic Front) was a primarily Tutsi armed rebel group that evolved from the Rwandan Alliance for National Unity (RANU) with the pronounced conflict goals of promoting democratic change and politically opposing the divisive policies and Hutu Nationalism of the Incumbent Rwandan Regime. Additionally, during the first year of active conflict in 1990, the group raised conflict goals issues regarding the corruption and human rights abuses committed by the government, and its unwillingness and incapacity to meet the basic needs of the Rwandan people. One of the initial statements in 1990 read, "We are opposing a system which is under a small clique that is undemocratic, corrupt, and abuses human rights"…" Our aim is simply to promote the welfare of the Rwandan people. This is about hunger, poverty and a rotten army".
The group continued to frequently raise conflict goal issues concerning the ousting of the incumbent regime, sharing of political power, and democratic change throughout the active years of conflict. Besides these most consistently raised issues, the group also continued to promote human rights and demanded that the Hutu-dominated military and security sector should be reformed, however, these issues were less emphasized during the two last active years leading up to the genocide and subsequent government takeover in 1994.
Congruently, the ousting of the government and the installment of democracy were, besides being the most frequently raised issues, the issues that were the most emphasized by the RPF in their statements and communiqués. A statement specifying the movement's primary conflict goal issues reads, "The RPF was formed with the objective of fighting bad governance that characterized Rwanda's history and to solve all the problems that resulted. Both the political and the armed struggle were aimed at liberating Rwanda from the bad dictatorial leadership in order to build a nation that abides by law, and upholds democracy, peace, security, justice and development."
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The initial conflict dynamics goals raised by the FPR in 1990 were the withdrawal of the French and Belgian forces from Rwanda and the repatriation of Tutsi refugees and exiles that had been forced to flee the country during the previous decades. First, the group appealed to the French and Belgian forces to withdraw from Rwanda, stating that "We object to foreign intervention be it by European or African countries." Second, the FPR stated that they fight for the repatriation of Tutsi exiles and refugees to return to Rwanda without the fear of violence or political marginalization.
The general pattern of conflict dynamics issues raised by the FPR during the active years of conflict reflects the initial conflict dynamics issues with the withdrawal of foreign forces and the return of Tutsi refugees and exiles as the two issues that were most frequently and consistently referred to by the group. The FPR also demanded the abuses and violence committed against the Tutsi minority in the country to stop and, towards the end of the conflict, called for increased foreign involvement in the form of impartial monitoring missions and aid initiatives rather than military intervention.
Following the conflict dynamics issue patterns, the FPR particularly emphasized removing French military forces and the return of Tutsi refugees to Rwanda, which was made clear in statements made by the group. For instance, one such statement read, "The government can be set up only after the establishment of security, maintained by foreign troops from either the UN or OAU. The French will therefore have to quit before the RPF takes part in the government.". The FPR also made clear that the return of Tutsi refugees and exiles to Rwanda was an unconditional demand that must be for-filled for the group to consider a political solution to the conflict.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The initial conflict resolution issue raised by the FPR during the active years of conflict was the movement's Opposition to negotiate with the incumbent regime. A statement by the FPR referencing president Juvénal Habyarimana read, "He has no mandate to negotiate in the name of a people he is slaughtering."
The FPR generally communicated demands concerning conflict resolution issues less frequently than demands concerning conflict issue goals and conflict dynamics issues, reflecting the overarching purpose of the movement to pursue a military strategy to achieve the needs and goals of the Tutsi political organizations and Diaspora. However, the conveyed conflict resolution issues showed a clear pattern and focused primarily on negotiations with the Rwandan government. On the one hand, some statements called for negotiations or wanted to change the structure of already proposed negotiations. On the other hand, as previously discussed, other statements opposed any form of negotiation with the government.
Even though the issues raised concerning conflict resolution were fewer, issues regarding negotiations and their structure were the most prevalent during the active years of conflict and can thereby be considered the FPR's primary conflict resolution issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Basic needs, Constitutional issues, Corruption, CPS: Democracy, CPS: Other/undefined system, Executive power-sharing, Executive power-sharing: interim, Human rights, Law and order, Oust full executive, Oust head of the executive, Oust parliament, Rule of law, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Humanitarian aid, IFI: International monitoring, IFI: Military intervention/foreign forces, Release of prisoners, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Call for negotiations, Opposition to negotiations, Peace agreement implementation, Structure of negotiations
Government of Mali - CMA
Conflict Goal Issues: Coordination des Mouvements de l’Azawad, Coordination of Azawad Movements, (CMA), originally established as Mouvement national de libération de l'Azawad, National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, (MNLA), was a Touareg secessionist rebel group fighting against the government of Mali to establish an independent state for the Touareg people in Northern Mali called Azawad. The group was established in 2011 as a coalition of returning Touareg people from Libya who had been trained under Gaddafi and remnants of earlier Malian groups such as the ATNMC and MLA. During the years of its establishment CMA, then MNLA, stated several conflict goal issues. The group stated its commitment to principles of democracy, sovereignty, and freedom of expression. CMA also called for independence from the Malian government for Azawad and the Sahara region but also stated that increased autonomy and self-rule would be “the least that we will now accept with the Malian Government.” The issue of independence was reemphasized as the conflict emerged in early 2012, and issues of civil and human rights, security, and corruption were also raised. In late 2012, the group implied its intentions to organize the Malian state structure as a confederation: “We are seeking cultural, political and economic independence but not secession”.
As the conflict progressed, the issue of autonomy began being emphasized again, emphasizing the right to self-governance and self-determination. This also came with allegations of government corruption and calls for executive power-sharing and the federalization of the Malian state to give more autonomy and power to regional governance structures. CMA also reemphasized its intentions to protect the civil and human rights of the people of Azawad and their access to public services and their own natural resources. In 2013, the group stated its intentions to liberate Azawad from poverty and to free it from the administration, which was interpreted as a call for ousting the government.
The main conflict goal issue of CMA was the issue of self-determination, independence, and autonomy. The group frequently varied in communications as to whether it fought for independence or only increased autonomy and self-rule throughout the conflict, which is why the main issue should only be considered increased regional autonomy for the people of Azawad.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: In 2011, CMA released statements calling upon the international community, especially the government of France, to use its influence to take its “full responsibility” and “to better guarantee peace and security as stipulated in international law.”, alluding to the responsibility to protect. In 2012, the group accused the Malian army of “abuse, torture, confiscation of property, perpetrated on the population” and called for the removal of foreign forces, influence, and civilians, stating that their presence “is a real threat and a source of insecurity for the people of Azawad”. The group also called for international investigations to be initiated into the Malian government and army for crimes against humanity.
As the conflict progressed, CMA continuously emphasized ethnically motivated atrocities and abuses against the people of Azawad by military and militia forces. Based on these abuses, the group also frequently called for international investigations, prosecutions, and monitoring missions to be initiated. CMA also began calling for foreign pressure to be applied onto the Malian government again, calling for it to “exercise its moral authority over Mali and uphold the basic principles of human rights in Azawad.” Towards the end of the conflict, CMA released statements calling for the release of political prisoners and prisoners of war detained by the Malian government, for humanitarian aid for the people of Azawad, and for the assistance from the international community, particularly ECOWAS, to assist in mediations with the government.
The main conflict dynamics issues of CMA were the continuously and frequently stated issue of abuses and atrocities against the civilian population in Azawad and the allegations that these were motivated by ethnicity. These issues were heavily emphasized throughout the entire duration of the coded conflict.
Conflict Resolution Issues: In 2011 and 2012, CMA called for negotiations with the government under supervision of the international community, called for the implementation of the Algiers agreement, a peace agreement which included the demilitarization of Azawad, and for recognition of wrongdoing as well as accountability for previous and current war crimes perpetrated by government forces.
As the conflict progressed, issues of accountability and prosecution, peace agreement implementation, calls for negotiations, and demands that negotiations be held under international supervision were continuously stated by CMA. In 2014, the group also called for truth and reconciliation processes to be implemented and for the Malian government to abide by an agreed upon ceasefire.
The main conflict resolution issues of CMA were calls for negotiations, statements pertaining to the structure of negotiations, and calls for the implementation of peace agreements. These issues were continuously and frequently mentioned with heavy emphasis throughout the entire conflict.
Type of conflict issues: The coded conflict issues for this group are: Conflict Goal Issues: Autonomy, Basic needs, Civil rights, Confederation/union, Corruption, Cultural rights, Electoral fraud, Executive power-sharing, Federalism, Freedom of expression, Freedom of movement, Human rights, Independence, Law and order, Oust full executive, Protection of natural resources/the environment, Public services, Rule of law
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Removal of foreigners, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Foreign mediator, IFI: Humanitarian aid, IFI: International court/tribunal/investigation, IFI: International monitoring, IFI: Use of foreign influence, Military conduct, Release of prisoners, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Accountability/prosecution/investigation, Call for implementation/abiding to ceasefire, Call for negotiations, Call for truth and reconciliation processes, Peace agreement implementation, Recognition of wrongdoing, Structure of negotiations
Government of Mali - Ansar Dine
Conflict Goal Issues: Ansar Dine, also called Ansar al-Dine or the Defenders of the Faith, was a rebel group with its origins in the northern parts of Mali. Ansar Dine consisted mainly of Tuaregs and had a clear Islamist ideology based in Salafism and Wahhabism. The group emerged in 2011 and the first coded statement by the group was registered to late December of that year when the group’s leader Iyad Ag Ghali said that the group demanded the “implementation of Sharia”. As Ansar Dine involved itself in fighting the [Government of Mali]/#/actor/72) from 2012 and onwards, their conflict goal issues came to evolve, among other things, around the creation of an Islamic republic, the increased influence of religion on Mali’s education system and the attachment of Sharia law to the country’s constitution. However, throughout Ansar Dine’s years of actively fighting the Malian government its main conflict goal issue continuously was a change of the judicial system and the implementation of Sharia. Another conflict goal issue that received a lot of attention was Ansar Dine’s claim that the UNESCO world heritage mausoleums in Timbuktu were haram and therefore should be destroyed. Ansar Dine consequently demolished a number of the ancient Sufi shrines after it gained control of the area in 2012.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The first issues raised by Ansar Dine in relation to conflict dynamics concerned the involvement of international organizations in the distribution of humanitarian aid in Mali. The group explained: “we only want [things] from Mali” in April 2012. The group referred to assaults and atrocities that had been carried out against the Muslim population as reasons for fighting [Mali’s government]/#/actor/72). The main statements coded as conflict dynamics issues regarded the wish to have a decreased level of foreign involvement in Mali. The call for the withdrawal of French, and other foreign military forces from the region, was especially emphasized throughout the duration of the conflict.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The conflict resolution issues raised by Ansar Dine were few and somewhat ambiguous in nature. During its first registered year of fighting the Malian government in 2012, the group expressed its readiness to “engage in a process of political dialogue”, and urged all other armed movements in the country to join them. However, a few years later in 2015, when a peace agreement had been signed in Mali, Ansar Dine criticized the deal and the groups that had signed it. No main conflict resolution issues could be identified due to the low number of registered issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Blasphemy, Change judicial system, Civil rights, Constitutional issues, CPS: Islamic state, Destruction of cultural heritage, Economic reforms, Education system: increase religion, Human rights, Law and order, Protection of cultural heritage, Restrictions on religious rights
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: religious, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Withdrawal of humanitarian aid, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, IFI: Use of foreign influence, Return of refugees/IDPs
Conflict Resolution Issues: Call for negotiations, Opposition to peace agreement, Structure of negotiations
Government of Rwanda - FDLR-FOCA
Conflict Goal Issues: The FDLR (Forces Démocratiques De Libération Du Rwanda) was an armed rebel group formed in 2000 following a reorganization of the rebel group ALIR with the pronounced conflict goal of ousting the incumbent Tutsi-dominated Rwandan regime. However, as opposed to its predecessor, the FDLR officially aspired to achieve its objective through political means. While the group's recruitment base became increasingly diverse during the active years of conflict, the movement was characterized by its ethnic supremacist Hutu Power Ideology and organized the majority of the remaining Rwandan genociders.
The conflict goal issues of the FDLR show a consistent pattern composed of three major issues that were frequently and consistently referred to throughout the group's active years. First, the FDLR demanded entry to the Rwandan political space and to be legally recognized as a legitimate political party. Second, the group demanded the safe return of the group's members, supporters, and Hutu co-ethnic refugees to Rwanda. Third, as previously mentioned, the FDLR has demanded the removal of the incumbent Tutsi regime since the group's inception and has continued to do so throughout the years of conflict.
Congruently, these three conflict goal issues were also the most emphasized issues by the FDLR and can thereby be considered the group's primary conflict goal issues. For instance, a 2007 statement regarding the issue of returning refugees reads, "We are tired of being refugees. What we want is to return home. We will agree on how we will return home. That's the only thing that FDLR will negotiate for.". Furthermore, the recognition of the rebel group as a legitimate political actor and the ousting of the incumbent Rwandan regime has also been highly emphasized and promoted as central for the group to accept a peace agreement and voluntarily disarm.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The first conflict dynamics issue raised by the FDLR in 2001, and the only coded conflict dynamics issue during the first year of activity, was the group's stated opposition to any MONUC (The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) DDR initiatives in Congo where the group was acting under the umbrella of the Congolese government.
The development of the FDLR's conflict dynamics issues shows a similar pattern to the conflict goal issues, with two issues being consistently referred to throughout the active years of conflict. These issues were the insecurity caused by the collective targeting of Hutu co-ethnics by the Rwandan Government and the structure and timing of a potential disarmament process. The FDLR was opposed to MUNOC's DDR initiative in Congo in 2001 and refused to support the disarmament deal reached between Congo and Rwanda in 2007. However, the FDLR have both in 2005 and 2014 promoted disarmament initiatives that provide sufficient security structures and the opportunity to transform into a legitimate political party in Rwanda.
Besides being the most frequently and consistently raised issues by the FDLR, the group also emphasized the centrality of both collective targeting and DDR issues to its overall cause. For instance, in 2007, the movement's leader, Ignace Murwanashyaka, stated, "We say no to forced disarmament. We will defend ourselves," when asked about the disarmament deal between Congo and Rwanda. Furthermore, the group described itself in 2007 as "Rwandans determined to defend their motherland kept under constant threats of extermination by a tyrannic and barbaric regime.".
Conflict Resolution Issues: The first conflict resolution issue raised by the FDLR was a demand for political negotiations between the group and the government of Rwanda. There is a clear pattern of conflict resolution issues raised by the FLDR, with the absolute majority either calling for negotiations and forming a national dialogue or questioning the structure of these conflict resolution mechanisms. The FDLR frequently and continuously called for negotiations with the Rwandan government and other relevant domestic political actors.
Like the previously discussed issue types, the issues that were most frequently and consistently referred to by the group – i.e., calling for negotiations and national dialogue – were also the most highly emphasized. For example, in an Interview in 2007, the FLDR's leader Murwanasyaka said that "the FDLR would only return to Rwanda in peace after the movement had negotiated conditions for their return at an all-inclusive inter-Rwandan dialogue." which implies the value the group attributed to both issues.
Type of conflict issues: *Conflict Goal Issues: * Civil rights, CPS: Democracy, Oust full executive, Recognition as a political party, Security sector power-sharing
*Conflict Dynamics Issues: * Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, IFI: International monitoring, Non-refoulement of refugees/IDPs, Return of refugees/IDPs
*Conflict Resolution Issues: * Amnesties, Call for negotiations, DDR issues, National dialogue, Recognition of wrongdoing, Structure of negotiations
Government of Central African Republic - anti-Balaka
Conflict Goal Issues: Anti-Balaka, anti-sword/anti-machete, was a mostly Christian rebel group in the Central African Republic (CAR). The group consisted of many different sub-groups and emerged as an alliance of several militias and emerged in 2013 following the ousting of former President Francois Bozize in 2013. During the year of its emergence, anti-Balaka called for two conflict goal issues calling for President Michel Djotodia to be removed from office and stated that a government position constituted a precondition for the group’s surrender.
In its second, and final coded, year of existence, the anti-Balaka reiterated its intentions to oust President Djotodia from office. Although the group did not restate intentions to establish executive power-sharing with themselves in government position, issues of parliamentary and security sector power-sharing were raised, calling for the incorporation of anti-Balaka members into the legislative and military national structures. The group also began calling for the establishment of security and constitutional order as well as for the civil rights and access to public services of the Central African people to be respected. Finally, anti-Balaka also accused the government of economic corruption: “a leader supposed to lead the Central African state is suspected of embezzling a large sum of money at a critical time when the Central African people are shaving the wall”.
The main conflict goal issue for anti-Balaka was the ousting of President Djotodia and his cabinet from power. This issue was continuously stated with heavy emphasis and was frequently indicated by the group during its brief coded existence.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: During the year of its emergence, anti-Balaka raised issues of atrocities and abuses committed by another Central African rebel group, Seleka, against the civilian population. The group also called for the removal of foreigners, calling for the removal of “jihadists from Chad and Sudan”.
In the second coded year of conflict, the group did not explicitly reiterate either of these issues. Instead, anti-Balaka stated that its goal was “to save the country from Chadian and Sudanese forces that have taken the country hostage, and to defend the Christian population”, indicating issues of collective targeting from military forces and calls for the removal of foreign military forces. The group also called for the removal of foreign military support to the Central African government from Chad. Finally, anti-Balaka also initiated a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Muslim civilians in the areas it controlled, stating that: “We don’t want any more Muslims in our country.” No particular main conflict dynamics issue was interpreted as no issues were stated in both coded years.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The only interpreted conflict resolution issue expressed by anti-Balaka in 2013 was a statement calling for general amnesty as a precondition for its forces to surrender to the government. This issue was not reiterated in 2014, although several further issues were raised. The group called for negotiations to be established and a ceasefire to be initiated: “We don't want war anymore. We wish the Central African authorities a dialogue for a return to peace in the Central African Republic.” After this, anti-Balaka also called for compensation of losses suffered during the fighting, the establishment of a national reconciliation process, and for a process of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) to be initiated for combatants who wanted to reintegrate into Central African society. No main conflict resolution issue was interpreted for anti-Balaka.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Civil rights, Constitutional issues, Corruption, Executive power-sharing, Law and order, Oust head of the executive, Parliamentary power-sharing, Public services, Security sector power-sharing
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Call for collective targeting: religious, Collective targeting: religious, DFI: Removal of foreigners, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, DFI: Withdrawal of military support
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Amnesties, Call for ceasefire, Call for negotiations, Call for truth and reconciliation processes, Compensation/restoration, DDR issues
Government of Mali - AQIM
Conflict Goal Issues: Qaida al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Maghrib al-Islami, al-Qaida Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) was an Islamist rebel group that splintered from the GIA in 1998. The group emerged in Algeria in 1998 under the name Groupe salafiste pour la prédication et le combat (GSPC) although the group also became active in conflict with the governments of Mauritania and Mali in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The group also fought against the government of Tunisia, although no specific separate conflict issues were interpreted during that conflict, and its explicitly stated aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Maghreb region of Northern Africa. AQIM’s first stated conflict goal issue was interpreted in 2007, when the group stated its intent to oust the government’s of the Maghreb region. In 2008, AQIM reiterated this intention with accusations of government corruption, and also called for the establishment of Sharia law in Mali.
In 2016, the group reiterated its intentions to oust the Malian government and establish Sharia law, and also introduced calls for establishing an Islamic state to protect the religious rights of Malian Muslims.
The main conflict goal issue for AQIM in Mali was the ousting of the Malian government. This issue was continuously stated throughout the conflict with heavy emphasis.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: In 2007, AQIM stated its intentions to collectively target non-Muslim civilians and took accountability for an attack against French and Spanish civilians in the region. In 2008, the group also called for the removal of French and Spanish influence over the governments of the Maghreb region.
As the conflict emerged in Mali, removal of foreign influence was only reiterated in 2016 and calls for collective targeting were not explicitly restated. Instead, the group began calling for the expulsion of foreign military forces both in Mali and Maghreb, but also in Afghanistan in 2010. On singular instances, AQIM also accused the Malian government and foreign forces of committing human rights abuses against Islamists, called for the release of prisoners of war, and called for revenge against government forces.
The main conflict dynamics issues for AQIM in Mali was the withdrawal of foreign forces, as this issue was continuously stated and often heavily emphasized.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The project coded no statements from AQIM in Mali pertaining to conflict resolution issues.
Type of conflict issues: The coded conflict issues for this group are: Conflict Goal Issues: Change judicial system, Corruption, CPS: Islamic state, Oust full executive, Religious rights
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Call for collective targeting: ethnic, DFI: Removal of foreign influence, DFI: Withdrawal of military intervention/foreign forces, DFI: Withdrawal of military support, Release of prisoners, Revenge/vengeance
Conflict Resolution Issues:
Government of Burundi - FPB
Conflict Goal Issues: The FPB (Forces populaires du Burundi – Popular Forces of Burundi) was an armed group previously known as Forebu (Forces républicaines du Burundi – Republican Forces of Burundi) formed in 2015 with the overarching conflict goal of restoring democracy to Burundi by ousting president Nkurunziza and thereby hindering him from running a third term and disrespecting the Arusha agreement and the Burundian constitution. A statement sent to various news agencies by Edouard Nshimirimana, the previous director of communications of the Burundian army, reads, "Our goal is to drive out Nkurunziza by force to restore the Arusha accord and democracy." The initially raised conflict goal issues reflect the general theme of conflict goal issues communicated by the group. The FPB frequently emphasized that they fought for democracy, the upholding of the Burundian constitution, and the ousting of president Nkurunziza. Furthermore, the group also claimed to be fighting for the reform of the Burundian military and the upholding of the rule of law. A 2016 statement reads, "We are calling on all Burundians who believe in the rule of law to join us." Based on the issues most frequently raised by the FPB and to what extent they were emphasized, the primary conflict goal issues were the ousting of president Nkurunziza and the upholding of the democratic process, the Burundian constitution, and the rule of law.
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The project has located two statements by the group raising conflict dynamics issues that share the same theme. First, the FPB claimed to be fighting to protect the Burundian civilians and protesters who were being collectively targeted, abused, and killed by the government because of their political stance against Nkurunziza running for a third term as president. Second, a statement by one of the group leaders in 2017 lifts armed resistance as the only way to stop the atrocities committed by the regime and accused them of continuing to "…kill, torture, imprison and force into exile all who dare to oppose…". Thus, based on the located conflict dynamics issues, the FPB's main conflict dynamics issues was the collective targeting of civilians and political opponents.
Conflict Resolution Issues: The initial conflict resolution issue raised by the FPB in 2015 was the upholding and re-implementation of the Arusha accord, which they accused Nkurunziza of violating by running for a third term. The conflict resolution issue of reinstating the agreements settled during the Arusha Agreement continued to be central to the movement's cause during the years of active conflict. Furthermore, the remaining statements regarding conflict resolution issues all concerned the structure and timing of negotiations. In statements from 2017, FPB called for negotiations and stated that dialogue was the only way forward. The movement vowed to continue to use force until the government recognized them and included them in negotiations and inclusive peace talks. However, in a different statement from 2016, one of the group leaders stated that the group opposed peace talks and would only accept the ousting of president Nkurunziza and his regime. Conclusively, based and the frequency and emphasis of the FPB's statements, the re-implementation of the Arusha accords, and the structure and timing of negotiations can be considered the movement's primary conflict resolution issues.
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues: Constitutional issues, CPS: Democracy, Oust head of the executive, Reform judicial system, Restructure military forces, Rule of law
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Collective targeting: political
*Conflict Resolution Issues: Call for negotiations, Opposition to negotiations, Peace agreement implementation, Structure of negotiations
Government of Burundi - RED-TABARA
Conflict Goal Issues: RED-TABARA (Résistance pour un Etat de Droit au Burundi - Resistance for the Rule of Law in Burundi) was a Burundian armed rebel group formed on 24 April 2011 with the pronounced goal of ousting the incumbent Tutsi regime, reinstating the constitution laid out by the Burundian Arusha accords in 2000, and introduce a democratic political system with free elections. In order to achieve these conflict goals, the group aspired to militarily overthrow the Burundian government and subsequently install a transitional government tasked with holding the democratic elections. RED-TABARA did not officially adhere to any specific ideology or religion but were multi-ethnic as opposed to the lion's share of the armed groups active in the civil war. The initially raised issues of ousting the incumbent regime, enforcing the previous constitution, and holding free, fair, and democratic elections continued to be the three most frequently raised and most intensely emphasized conflict goal issues by the RED-TABARA during the years of active conflict. Additionally, Red-Tabara claimed to be fighting to restore justice and the rule of law in Burundi in a 2016 statement and accused Pierre Nkurunziza and his government of electoral fraud, abuses of power, and undemocratic practices. Conclusively, based on the frequency and the emphasis in the statements located by the project, the main conflict goal issues of the RED-TABARA consist of three primary themes. First, the ousting of the president and the government. Second, democratization, civil rights, and free and fair elections. Third, the reinstatement of the 2000 constitution settled in the Arusha agreement
Conflict Dynamics Issues: The project has located three issues raised by the group in 2016 which concerned conflict dynamics. The group accused the Burundian army and government of targeting civilians and committing atrocities, stated that armed resistance was the only "legitimate and obligatory" option to combat these abuses. One of the statements called for Burundians inside the country and in the diaspora to join the group to stop the atrocities and overthrow the incumbent regime, while another warned that without the support of the population, Burundians were "in danger of extermination". Thus, based on the statements located by the project, the collective targeting of civilians, committing of atrocities and abuses, and the call for support by the civilian population and the Burundian diaspora were the primary conflict dynamics issues
Conflict Resolution Issues: The project has not been able to find any statements from this group concerning conflict resolution issues
Type of conflict issues: Conflict Goal Issues:
Basic needs,
Civil rights,
Constitutional issues,
CPS: Democracy,
Disband para-military forces,
Electoral fraud,
Freedom of expression,
Hold elections,
Oust full executive,
Restructure military forces,
Rule of law
Conflict Dynamics Issues: Atrocities and abuses, Collective targeting: ethnic, IFI: Support from diasporas/foreign fighters
Conflict Resolution Issues: No issues identified.
Annual information
This section contains annual information systematically collected by the UCDP.
1977
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - FLNC
1978
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - FLNC
1989
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1990
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1991
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1992
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1993
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1995
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1996
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFDL
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1997
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFDL
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1998
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
1999
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2000
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2001
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
2002
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2004
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2005
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RNL
2006
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2007
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2008
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2009
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2010
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
2011
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
2012
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - UPCP
2013
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - APCLS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kata Katanga
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila
2014
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - APCLS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kata Katanga
2016
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Opponents of Kabila
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kamuina Nsapu
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RNL
2017
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Opponents of Kabila
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kamuina Nsapu
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MNR
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
2018
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - UPLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
2019
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - UPLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CMC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
2020
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - APCLS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Kata Katanga
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CMC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
2021
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - APCLS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CMC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RNL
2022
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Mayi Mayi Kyandenga
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RNL
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - FABB
2023
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
2024
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFC
2025
Actor Active in Dyad(s):
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Civilians
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CRP
Group Archive
This section contains annual information no longer systematically collected by the UCDP.
1977 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - FLNC
Troop Size: 40 000 - 53 000
Secondary Support: USA supported the Zairean government with non-lethal military equipment. France sent advisors as well as Mirage fighters, Panhard armored cars, and Puma helicopters. Belgum supported the government with two C-130 transport planes with light weapons. China sent military supplies.
1978 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - FLNC
Troop Size: 53 000
1996 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFDL
Comment on Active: The government forces (FAZ) are very undisciplined and poorly trained. There has been widespread desertion and the government has come to rely on several irregular forces, such as the Mayi-Mayi militias and the Burundi and Rwandan Hutu militias.
Troop Size: 20 000 - 50 000
Comment on Troop Size: The Zairian governmental army (FAZ) that in the middle of the 1980s consisted of 70 000 troops had declined to close to 20 000 in the 1990s when Mobutu failed to pay their payrolls. The remaining soldiers were underpaid and demoralized. While foreign mercenaries were paid up to $10,000 for a three-month period, the Zairian army soldiers did not receive any payment and consequently deserted. These soldiers were backed by a number of special forces, for example the guard civile, 10 000 troops led by Kpama Baramoto, Division Speciale Presidentielle (DSP) commanded by General Nzimbi with an estimated 10 000 -15 000 troops, and 30 000 led by General Eluki Mongo Aundu. Furthermore, Mobutu received help from some hundred foreign mercenaries reportedly from France, Belgium, Serbia, Croatia and Uzbekistan. Estimates from 1996 still estimate the number of total armed forces active at 49 100 of whom 25 000 were army soldiers.
1997 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - AFDL
Comment on Active: In mid-May President Mobutu was defeated by the AFDL and its allies. The rebel leader Laurent Kabila subsequently took over power and claimed victory. Accordingly, the government party in the conflict changed this year. The Mobutu presidency and his government, was on 16 May 1997 replaced by Kabila and the AFDL. 1 January to 16 May: Government-Mobutu. 16 May to 31 December: Government-Kabila
Troop Size: 20 000 - 28 000
1998 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Troop Size: 20 000 - 50 000
Comment on Troop Size: The government forces troop strength is estimated at 20 000 - 50 000 soldiers. Many of them had been trained by Rwanda in the past year and some deserted to the RCD in the first month of conflict. Therefore the government has been forced to rely on foreign troops and irregular forces. The Mayi-Mayi militia, the Rwandan Interahamwé and the Burundian FDD were allies to Kabila. Kabila launched a recruitment campaign in Tanzania where he promised new recruits weapon, uniforms and money. This campaign made approximately 3 000 fighters to return to the FDD camps in DRC.
Secondary Support: In August Sudan supported the government of DRC with guns. Sudan was also accused of having sent 2000 Muslim Congolese residing in the capital Khartoum to fight in the DRC. The rebels accused Libya for having partly financed Sudans sending of the Congolese Mujahideen. There have also been reports of Eritrea and Egypt giving open or tacit support to Kabila. The nature of the support was, however, not described in detail. Moral support was given from the international community, including the UNSC and the OAU, repeating that the DRCs territorial integrity must be respected and that foreign troops must withdraw. No practical steps have though been taken.
1999 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Troop Size: 50 000 - 55 900
Comment on Troop Size: The official number of governmental troops was 50 000 - 55 900. Kabila still had a close cooperation with various militia groups, such as the ALiR, the Burundian FDD, the Congolese Mai-Mai warriors and Angolas UNITA.
2000 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - MLC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Troop Size: 45 000 - 55 900
Comment on Troop Size: The government troops are estimated to be 45 000 - 55 900.
2001 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - RCD
Comment on Active: The new government was sworn in on 19 July.
Troop Size: 45 000 - 81 400
Comment on Troop Size: The estimation of the DRC army for 2001 is 45 000 - 81 400.
2006 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Troop Size: 51 000
2007 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Comment on Active: On 5 February 2007 the transition period finally ended as the new government elected in the 2006 elections was installed.
Troop Size: 134 484
Secondary Support: In December 2007, the Congolese army FARDC was given logistical support from MONUC peacekeepers during their offensive against the CNDP in Masisi. The FDLR (Front Democratique de Liberation de Rwanda) participated in joint ops with the Government (FARDC) against CNDP. Further, the UN reports that weapons and logistics have been traded between the two groups.
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Troop Size: 134 484
2008 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNDP
Secondary Support: Throughout 2008, the Congolese army (FARDC) was given logistical support from MONUC peacekeepers during their offensive against the CNDP in Masisi. The FDLR (Front Democratique de Liberation de Rwanda) participated in joint ops with the Government (FARDC) against CNDP. Further, the UN reports that weapons and logistics have been traded between the two groups.
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - BDK
Troop Size: 139 251-151 251
Comment on Troop Size: Active troops 139 251-151 251 (central staffs 14 000, army 110 000-120 000, republican guard 6000-8000, navy 6703, air 2548 )
2011 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Troop Size: 150 000
Comment on Troop Size: 150 000 men of whom 2500 in the Navy, 3000 in the air forces and 15 000 in the Republican Guard.
2012 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - CNPSC
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Secondary Support: The main arms suppliers to the DRC include China, Egypt, France, South Africa, Ukraine and USA.
2013 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - APCLS
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - M23
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - Forces of Paul Joseph Mukungubila
Comment on Troop Size: FARDC had at least 6,000 troops during the final operation
Secondary Support: Intelligence
2025 Group Archive
Government of DR Congo (Zaire) - IS
Secondary Support: Uganda troops
