December, 20 2010, 09:46am EDT

DR Congo: Rogue Leaders, Rebels Forcibly Recruit Youth
Tensions Rise as Armed Groups Expand Their Ranks
GOMA
Rogue Congolese army officers and armed groups in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are forcibly recruiting and training for combat hundreds of young men and boys in new efforts to expand their ranks, Human Rights Watch said today. The wave of military recruitment, which began around September 2010, signals a possible collapse of eastern Congo's peace process.
Human Rights Watch interviewed dozens of escaped recruits, as well as teachers, local leaders, and child protection workers, who described the forced or underage recruitment of more than 1,000 young men and boys since September. At least 261 were under age 18. Many of the children were re-recruited after previously escaping or being demobilized.
"Armed groups in eastern Congo are pulling youth from schools, homes, and fields and forcing them to fight," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The Congolese government should urgently stop this recruitment and prosecute those responsible."
Domestic and international law applicable in the Congo prohibits forced recruitment and the recruitment of children under 18 into armed groups.
Recruitment by Former Rebels
The Congolese army general and former rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda and officers loyal to him, including Lt. Col. Innocent Zimurinda and Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, have been responsible for the forced recruitment of hundreds of young men and boys in recent months in North and South Kivu provinces, witnesses told Human Rights Watch. At least 121 of the new recruits are children, under age 18, although reports received by Human Rights Watch indicate that there are probably many more.
Ntaganda was the military leader of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former rebel group supported by neighboring Rwanda, who fought the Congolese army beginning in 2006. In January 2009, following an agreement between the presidents of Congo and Rwanda, the CNDP agreed to give up its rebellion and integrate into the Congolese army's ranks. The integration of the former enemies has been fraught with continuing tensions.
Although nominally in the Congolese army, Ntaganda maintains a parallel chain of command operating outside the army's military hierarchy. Some former CNDP units have gone further, ending their participation in the integration process. New recruits are forced to join the units under Ntaganda's parallel command structure.
A 17-year-old boy from the Nyanzale area said that the Congolese army officers who forcibly recruited him previously belonged to the CNDP and told him he was joining Ntaganda's army. He was then put in a prison and only allowed out once a day for military training. "The officers said we wouldn't fight the government until General Ntaganda gives the order," he told a Human Rights Watch researcher, after he managed to escape. "Once Ntaganda gives the order to start the war, we will start. Until then, we wait."
Witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that since early October, former CNDP commanders integrated into the Congolese army had called at least seven meetings for young men and boys in the Ufumandu and Ziralo areas, on the pretext of discussing development issues. Those who attended the meetings soon learned that the real motive was to recruit them into the CNDP to fight the government. They were told they would be given US$60 each with an increase in salary and other benefits "as soon as the war is won."
In the Kitchanga area in mid-November, officers under the command of Lt. Col. Zimurinda visited schools, making lists of male students, ages 15 to 20. In subsequent weeks, Congolese army soldiers loyal to Ntaganda took the youths away from schools, their homes, fields, or as they walked to and from school. In Charamba village, on November 15, seven young men were taken from a football field before a match and have not been seen since.
Those who resist risk severe punishment or even death. On November 23, in Burungu, former CNDP soldiers shot a 22-year-old man when he tried to escape. He died just after reaching a hospital. In other cases, those who resisted were badly beaten, thrown in prisons for several days or more, and then forced to join.
Many youth in the affected regions are now hiding in the forests or trying to flee to larger towns to escape the forced recruitment, witnesses told Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch research found that Ntaganda and other former CNDP officers loyal to him have been responsible for recruitment in the Ufumandu, Kitchanga, Kalembe, and Mpati areas of Masisi territory (North Kivu); the Bwiza and Nyanzale areas of Rutshuru territory (North Kivu); and the Ziralo area of Kalehe territory (South Kivu). Military training for the new recruits is being conducted in Bwiza, Muheto, Nyamitaba, and Ufumandu.
Ntaganda had previously been implicated in forcibly recruiting and training children and young men for combat. In 2006, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for him for war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children as soldiers and using them in hostilities in the Ituri district of eastern Congo. The Congolese government has failed to act on the arrest warrant, claiming that arresting him would harm the peace process.
Congolese army officers in North Kivu informed Human Rights Watch that they have received reports of new recruitment by forces loyal to Ntaganda and have opened investigations. They said that they have sent warnings to officers under their command that any forced recruitment will not be tolerated.
"It is shocking that an individual wanted by the ICC continues to commit the very crimes for which he is charged," Van Woudenberg said. "The Congolese government should not only end the illegal recruiting, but immediately arrest Ntaganda, instead of hiding behind a facade that he's necessary for the peace process."
Recruitment by the FDLR and Other Armed Groups
Human Rights Watch has also documented recent cases of forced or under-age recruitment by the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a predominately Rwandan Hutu rebel group, some of whose leaders participated in the genocide in Rwanda. Human Rights Watch research identified at least 83 Congolese children under 18, some as young as 14, recently recruited by the FDLR. Many were previously with the FDLR, managed to escape, and were targeted again when they returned to their families.
A 17-year-old boy interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had been a child soldier with the FDLR and allied groups since age 7, managed to escape in August and rejoin his family. Only a few months later, in November, he was forcibly recruited again by the FDLR. He escaped a second time a few weeks later.
"They grabbed me while I was walking home, tied me up, and put me in a prison," he told Human Rights Watch, describing his second forcible recruitment. "Then after three days, they gave me a uniform and a weapon... I was eventually able to flee when they sent me on my own to steal a goat. Many other Congolese children are still with the FDLR, and they want to escape but they're scared. The commanders will kill anyone they suspect of wanting to flee."
Various local militia groups known as the Mai Mai, who remain outside of the integration process in eastern Congo, are also forcibly recruiting young men and boys as well as holding children in their ranks from previous recruitment drives. These include the Alliance des patriotes pour un Congo libre et souverain (APCLS), Mai Mai Kirikicho, Mai Mai Sheka, and Patriotes resistants congolais (PARECO) factions. At least 57 children under 18 have recently been recruited by these armed groups.
Human Rights Watch interviewed a 14-year-old boy who recently escaped the APCLS, after being with the group since he was 6 years old. "There are children my age or younger at each APCLS position," he said. "Children who refuse to become soldiers are killed."
Child Protection Workers Express Alarm
Child protection workers told Human Rights Watch that there has been a significant increase in the numbers of children in eastern Congo fleeing recruitment since September, especially those who were previously demobilized and are once again being targeted. Child protection workers have registered at least 193 such cases of re-recruitment since September.
Many former rebels who were integrated into the Congolese army in early 2009 have hidden children within their ranks rather than demobilize them. According to a recent report from the United Nations Group of Experts on the Congo, child protection officers have not been allowed to screen nearly two-thirds of the Congolese army soldiers involved in joint military operations with the UN, to ensure that child combatants do not take part.
In January 2009, the Congolese government adopted the Child Protection Code, which prohibits recruiting children under age 18 into armed forces and groups. Recruiters face 20 years in prison, but few have been tried on these charges. Congo has also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which prohibits recruiting people under 18 for armed groups.
"Armed groups and rogue elements of the Congolese army repeatedly prey on boys, pressganging them into military service," Van Woudenberg said. "These children desperately need the protection of their government and UN peacekeepers."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Rwanda Confirms Talks With Trump Administration to Take Deported Migrants
"As we did with the U.K.-Rwanda deportation deal... let us unapologetically and loudly oppose this again," said one Rwandan human rights defender.
May 05, 2025
Rwanda's foreign minister confirmed Sunday that the East African nation's government is in "early stage" talks with the Trump administration about possibly taking in migrants deported from the United States.
"It has not yet reached a stage where we can say exactly how things will proceed, but the talks are ongoing," Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe toldRwanda TV. He added that the Rwandan government is in the "spirit" of offering "another chance to migrants who have problems across the world."
Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration is seeking nations that are willing to accept its deportees.
"We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries."
"We are working with other countries to say, 'We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries. Will you do that as a favor to us?'" Rubio said. "And the farther away from America, the better, so they can't come back across the border."
The Wall Street Journalreported last month that Trump administration officials have also asked other countries including Benin, Eswatini, Kosovo, Libya, Moldova, and Mongolia about resettling U.S. deportees.
In 2022, Rwanda agreed to take in some people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom while their claims were being processed. However, the scheme was shelved amid legal and human rights concerns following the return to power of the center-left Labour Party. Rwanda is still seeking to collect £50 million ($66.4 million) from Britain despite the canceled deal.
The United Nations refugee agency condemned the U.K.-Rwanda deal, asserting that "externalizing asylum obligations poses serious risks for the safety of refugees" and "is not compatible with international refugee law."
Local human rights defenders strongly oppose any resettlement of third-country migrants in Rwanda.
"I with other concerned and responsible Rwandans are going to wage a legal war to challenge this arrangement between [Trump's] government and the dictatorial regime of [Rwandan President Paul Kagame]," investigative journalist Samuel Baker Byansi said on social media Sunday.
"Rwanda is not a dumping site of migrants with criminal records who have served their sentence in the U.S.," he added. "As we did with the U.K.-Rwanda deportation deal, fellow Rwandans in the country and abroad, let us unapologetically and loudly oppose this again."
Last month, the U.S. deported Omar Abdulsattar Ameen, an Iraqi refugee who had lived in the United States since 2014, to Rwanda after officials in Baghdad accused him of being a former Islamic State militant who murdered an Iraqi police officer. This, despite a U.S. judge's order blocking his deportation on the grounds that the murder allegation was "not plausible" since Ameen was living in Turkey at the time of the officer's killing.
Critics have sounded the alarm over potential perils migrants might face in Rwanda, including human rights violations and the possibility that they could be sent to third countries where they are at risk of violence and persecution.
The Trump administration is facing legal challenges to its mass deportation efforts, which include sending immigrants to the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay and the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador. President Donald Trump has even proposed deporting U.S. citizens to CECOT.
Trump appeared on NBC News' "Meet the Press" Sunday and was pressed by moderator Kristen Welker about the legality of his mass deportation program. Asked whether every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump replied: "I don't know. I'm not a lawyer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Trump's $1,000 for 'Voluntary Self-Deportation' Could Harm Undocumented Immigrants
One legal expert warned the offer from DHS "would sabotage" pending or future cases people might have in immigration court.
May 05, 2025
The Trump administration on Monday announced what it called "historic travel assistance and stipend for voluntary self-deportation," prompting one expert to issue a warning to undocumented immigrants who may consider the offer.
"If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest, and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a key leader of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda. "This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens, and is a 70% savings for U.S. taxpayers."
According to a statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), immigrants who use the CBP Home smartphone application to self-deport will receive "financial and travel assistance" as well as "a stipend of $1,000 dollars, paid after their return to their home country has been confirmed through the app."
DHS framed the offer as "a dignified way to leave" the United States without encountering Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and claimed people who submit their intent to self-deport in the app "will also be deprioritized for detention and removal ahead of their departure as long as they demonstrate they are making meaningful strides in completing that departure."
"DHS's claim that people who do this will be able to return is, in many cases, an outright LIE that will trap people into WORSE outcomes for them than if they stayed and fought a case in immigration court."
Responding to the announcement on social media, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, stressed that "it is incredibly important for all reporting on this to emphasize that DHS's claim that people who do this will be able to return is, in many cases, an outright LIE that will trap people into WORSE outcomes for them than if they stayed and fought a case in immigration court."
Reichlin-Melnick explained that "when a person is in immigration court proceedings, if they don't appear for a hearing, they get ordered deported—even if they're provably outside the country already. And having a deportation order makes it VERY hard to ever come back legally. DHS's offer would sabotage cases!"
"This move also raises VERY serious questions about statutory authority and funding sources. No law directly authorizes DHS to pay plane tickets and offer reimbursements to people leaving the country," he added. "The closest legal authority which might apply here is 8 USC § 1260, which authorizes using funding to deport 'aliens falling into distress' who are 'desirous of being so removed.' But that law also imposes a near-total ban on reentry, so if DHS is using that it's even worse!"
Prism immigration reporter Tina Vasquez shared a message from the app on social media Monday.
The CBP Home app features this flyer, with the many supposed benefits of self-deportation.
[image or embed]
— Tina Vasquez (@tinavasquez.bsky.social) May 5, 2025 at 10:40 AM
"I previously reported on how the Biden administration's attempt to modernize the immigration system through tech actually made things for immigrants more difficult," Vasquez noted. "I'm anxious to see how this app plays out in the deeply unfortunate cases where $1,000 is an incentive to self-deport."
"I also know that if the Biden [administration] offered $1,000 to undocumented immigrants—even for self-deportation—right-wing media would have screamed that Democrats were paying 'illegal aliens' with taxpayer dollars," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Film Insiders Say Trump's Proposed Hollywood Tariffs Would 'Destroy' Entertainment Industry
"We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on," said one film professional. "Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
May 05, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via social media Sunday evening that he would "begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff" on films produced in foreign countries was met with confusion and shock in the U.S. entertainment industry and abroad, with filmmakers cautioning that such extreme levies would render many productions impossible and do nothing to save what the president called the "dying" movie industry.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump took issue with "incentives" that have pushed filmmakers to shoot projects outside of the U.S., not only saying that the industry centered in Hollywood is "being devastated" but also suggesting that simply traveling to other countries to produce films leads to foreign "propaganda" being embedded in the final products.
"This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat," said Trump. "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!"
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested the administration is moving to implement the president's plan, writing, "We're on it" in his own social media post.
While the vast majority of U.S. films are already produced mainly in the U.S.—providing jobs to actors, editors, and other production staff—many major studios including streaming giants Amazon and Netflix have brought their production shoots to cities like Toronto and Dublin, where local leaders have offered large tax breaks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is currently addressing the effects those foreign tax incentives have had on working film professionals in Southern California—including makeup artists, camera operators, electricians, and other middle-class workers—by pushing for a tax credit for studios to film locally. The state Legislature is currently considering that proposal.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going."
But by "instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," film industry veterans said Trump would not succeed in bringing production jobs back to the United States—but would rather make all but the biggest budget films impossible to produce.
"This is NOT the effect this is going to have," one industry professional toldDeadline. "It will make low- and mid-level productions completely unproducable, hence destroying many jobs from producer assistants to writers to post-production. Further, it will lessen the amount of big budget content created because the studios won't be able to make as much because the cost of production will be more."
An official at a top U.S. film company that produces movies both domestically and internationally told Deadline that international film distributors will be less likely to buy U.S. films under Trump's new tariff plan.
"It affects domestic distribution deals but it also impacts equity players who have money in movies because their films will suddenly be worth less money," they said. "We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on. Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
Exactly how the proposed policy would be implemented was unclear from Trump's social media post, but U.K.-based producer told Deadline that "leading independent distributors would all be out of business if it's them" who have to pay the tariffs.
A source close to the White House toldPolitico that the tariff policy originated with actor Jon Voight, a strong supporter of Trump who—along with Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—has been named one of Trump's "special ambassadors" to Hollywood.
Deadlinereported last week that Voight was meeting with studios and union representatives in Hollywood to discuss a plan to revive the film industry, with "a federal tax incentive" expected to be a main component.
Voight's fellow ambassador, Gibson, is one Hollywood player who could be directly impacted by Trump's proposed tariffs; his film, a sequel to The Passion of the Christ, is scheduled to begin filming in Italy this summer.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going," wrote producer Randy Greenberg in a post on LinkedIn after Trump announced his plan.
The Washington Post reported that Trump could rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods; the law gives the Commerce Department 270 days to complete an investigation into alleged national security threats created by certain imports.
"Other nations have stolen our movie industry," Trump told reporters on Sunday. "If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in."
At The Guardian, film editor Andrew Pulver wrote that Trump's plan appears aimed at destroying "the international film industry":
The effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8 billion ($6.37 billion) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the U.K. came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS $767 million. A program of studio building in the U.K., designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the U.S. is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.
Despite Trump's claim that the industry is "dying," according to the Motion Picture Association's latest economic impact report, the U.S. film industry had a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 and $22.6 billion in exports.
An executive at a U.S. distribution company expressed hope to Deadline that Trump's threat would encourage "desperately needed increases in U.S. state tax incentives being implemented ASAP."
"Can't see his target here," they said, "other than confusion and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular