Amid Rwanda-Congo Dispute, M23’s Advance into the DRC Threatens Regional Stability

M23 rebels stand heavily armed in Kibumba, a town in the eastern DRC. Source: Moses Sawasawa / AP

The Rwandan government has provided military support to the rebel group M23, including troops and weaponry, since its rapid growth in 2013. M23 has been vying for control of the mineral-rich eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The group states, however, that their official purpose is to protect those of Tutsis and those of Rwandan descent in the wake of the 1990s Rwandan genocide, when tensions exploded between Hutu and Tutsis, resulting in the mass killings of 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus. 

Rwandan involvement in the Congo dates back to generational tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. A 2009 peace accord ended a Tutsi-led revolt in eastern Congo but gave rise to insurgent groups that claimed that the DRC was not fulfilling the requirements of the peace deal, which included the integration of Tutsis into the Congolese military. M23 advanced into the eastern Congo in 2013, before calling off the campaign with the mobilization of UN troops and the halting of Rwandan support due to US sanctions. 

On February 15th, M23 seized the city of Bukavu in the DRC. This city is the second-most strategically important city taken by the rebels. The first is Goma, the capital of the North Kivu Province seized by the M23 in January. The rebel advance signals growing tensions between Rwanda and the DRC. The international community must take immediate action to prevent the conflict from expanding and further human rights violations from taking place.

The leadership of both countries is now at odds, with the Congolese maintaining that the M23’s claims of protecting Tutsi interests are nothing more than a front for a Rwandan campaign to gain more influence in the eastern regions of the Congo and exploit the region’s mineral resources. Rwandan President Paul Kagame has fired back, claiming that Congolese President Felix Tshisekedia has failed to honor peace accords, thereby continuing to disclude the Tutsi population from many aspects of Congolese life. Rwanda also remains concerned that Hutu rebel groups that may have participated in the 1994 genocide against Tutsis have continued to be allowed to operate in the eastern regions of the Congo. While this may be true, this does not give Rwanda free rein to support the violation of state sovereignty and the killing and displacement of innocent Congolese civilians. In this case, a diplomatic solution may be necessary, with the DRC promising to root out the Hutu extremist groups in exchange for Rwanda ceasing support of rebel groups like M23. But, this kind of solution is likely to never come without a push from other international actors. 

The renewed violence has brought in regional actors and raised concerns about whether it could escalate into a larger conflict. Burundi, Tanzania, and Uganda have all deployed troops to assist the Congo in fighting M23 and other rebel groups. A summit of East and South African leaders has called for a ceasefire, but any other pressure has stopped there. However, the larger international community has fallen short of putting other pressure on Rwanda despite overt human rights violations by the rebel group.

The lack of action from the international community has allowed for increased involvement of various regional actors, thus raising the likelihood of the violence evolving into a larger conflict. Uganda is perhaps the most ambiguous regional actor, with a potential motive past humanitarian assistance to the Congo. For 30 years, Uganda and Rwanda have been competing for control of the mineral-rich eastern Congo, and Uganda does not seem interested in giving up that agenda. Both Uganda and Rwanda’s main exports are gold, and most of it happens to come from the eastern Congo. Despite attempting to assert direct influence over the region, Uganda wants to continue joint military operations with the Congo against M23 and other rebel groups, but it is also fighting to keep Rwanda from gaining more access to the eastern regions. Further complicating Uganda’s role in the conflict is that several Ugandan political and military figures have openly voiced support for M23 and called for the redrawing of Congo’s eastern borders. 

Uganda’s role seems to be the biggest point of contention and is playing a part in an increasing risk of regional conflict. The movement of Ugandan troops signals to Rwanda that it plans to continue to hold control over the eastern regions of the Congo, modeling the scenario created before the Second Congo War, also known as Africa’s World War, where Rwanda and Uganda fought over and eventually divided eastern Congo territory. Burundi is another actor complicating the conflict, as Burundi and Rwanda are fighting through proxies by supporting opposing rebel groups. Burundi is also taking the brunt of the refugee problem created by the conflict, as between 10,000 and 15,000 refugees have fled to the country, many from the outskirts of Bakuva. Most regional actors seem to be out for their own self-interest, making working towards a solution within the region difficult.

Despite the heightened risk of regional conflict and human rights violations already taking place, the larger international community is failing to put any real pressure on Rwanda. During the 2012 M23 conflict, international pressure was widely regarded as key in ending the conflict, in which the US cut $240 million in aid to Rwanda. Today, the pressure rests mostly on the European Union, as US President Donald Trump is pursuing an “American First” policy that involves cuts to international aid. However, the variety of countries within the European Union is proving difficult when it comes to carrying out a cohesive policy towards Rwanda. EU countries are struggling to form a consensus on if and what kind of action to take. Belgium is advocating sanctions, while France is blocking these due to Rwandan peacekeeping forces protecting a gas project in Mozambique. 

The international community’s history with Rwanda makes pressure on the nation difficult. During the Rwandan genocide, the UN ignored pleas for more help and labeled the conflict as “internal” and not requiring outside help. The lack of action by the international community before and during the genocide is largely seen as a failure to protect human rights, and leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron have claimed responsibility, saying that they could have stopped the genocide but lacked the will to do so. 

Now, Rwanda is supporting a militant group responsible for the deaths of over 7,000 people and displacement of over 700,000 since January. So, once again, is the international community going to ignore calls for help from an African government when a humanitarian crisis is already underway?

The failure of the international community to act is allowing M23 to continue to move further into eastern territories in the Congo, intensifying the humanitarian crisis and risk of larger conflict in the future. Action past words is needed. Nations need to put economic pressure in the form of sanctions or halting aid to pressure Rwanda and M23 to stop their advance.