This op-ed originally appeared on Politico.
Not all rebellions are born alike. Nowhere could the contrast between freedom fighters and occupiers be more evident than in traveling through rebel-controlled territories of Sudan and Congo, respectively. In the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, residents expressed a willingness to fight and die in support of the Sudan People's Liberation Army-North and its quest for political change. In eastern Congo, civilians described a predatory foreign-backed occupying rebel force, the M23, against which local armed groups are allying, leading to further rounds of devastating conflict. Understanding the differences provides insights into how peace might be more effectively pursued in both places, arguably the two deadliest wars globally since the 1940s.
Let's start with how a rebellion shouldn't look, and let the residents in eastern Congo describe it. One community leader from Rutshuru said, "The situation is catastrophic. We are under occupation. The M23 profits from the chaos and smuggling. The reason for this rebellion is the blood minerals." A village chief from Masisi said there is little economic activity because "if the M23 soldiers think you have money, they will come and take it. They rape women when they go out to their farming lands. They push us off our land too for grazing areas for their cows, which worsens land disputes. This war is all about taking the land and minerals underneath it."
M23 rebels, with external help, are paying armed groups with horrific human rights records to attack civilian targets, stirring intercommunal tensions and further undermining state authority. In contrast, Sudan's SPLA-N is working to build a coalition of armed and unarmed actors to press for a comprehensive peace process or, failing that, a more representative government in Khartoum.
In further contrast, in rebel-controlled areas of Sudan's Nuba Mountains, civilians point exclusively to Sudanese government bombing and aid blockages as the problem, citing the rebels as their only defense against annihilation. As one village leader told me, "The rebels try to protect us, but our areas are slowly being destroyed by the government." Another elder told us, "The SPLA-N is fighting for a new government that will bring peace to our areas. That is what we support." A Nuba community leader summarized the conflict: "The Sudan government wants our land, not the people. That is why we are supporting the SPLA-N to fight."
These declarations should not be mistaken for some treatise on good versus evil. There are gray areas everywhere, particularly in the fog of war. But what is clear is that the level of civilian support for a rebellion should impact the calculations of international policymakers and would-be peacemakers.
History also has some important lessons for efforts to end these two deadly wars. Both places have been marked by peace processes that attempt to divide sources of opposition and sideline independent voices. In Congo, the peace process of the moment is trying to cut a narrow deal between the M23 and the Congo government, leaving out the vast array of Congolese actors that should be involved in determining the future of their country. This replicates the patterns of previous peace "deals" that simply laid the foundation for further conflict.
In Sudan, the Khartoum government has manipulated the international community into supporting a series of compartmentalized processes that split the rebels in long-suffering Darfur and divided and marginalized the broader opposition in Sudan. Despite this, the rebellions are only growing stronger in different parts of the country and unarmed opposition is deepening as well.
What is needed in both countries are comprehensive, inclusive peace processes that deal with fundamental governance and resource conflict drivers and lead to profound political change in Khartoum and Kinshasa. Secretary of State John Kerry has a real opportunity to work with the African Union, United Nations and other interested parties to undertake more creative approaches to building longer-term peace in both countries. This will require from the U.S. and others a much deeper engagement with actors in both places seeking democracy, human rights and peace, and a willingness to commit to the building of their capacities to bring about real change. From the outside, in addition to assistance to these groups, the U.S. and others should work more aggressively for accountability for the worst perpetrators of war crimes, whether government or rebel.
"All we ask is that you help stop this," pleaded one young woman displaced in Congo's conflict. With a new strategy for change, deeper political engagement and enhanced work with allies in Africa and beyond, Kerry, given his history of personal interest in both these countries, has a real chance of helping to lay the foundation for peace.
Photo: Congolese government soldiers (AP).