Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Conflict in eastern Congo: A call for pragmatism, dialogue

Mr Kevin Ayebare

What you need to know:

  • The instability in eastern Congo is not just a national issue—it has ramifications for the entire East African region.
  • The region's leaders must recognise that military solutions alone cannot resolve historical injustices or deep-seated ethnic tensions.

The ongoing crisis in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) remains one of the most perplexing and deeply entrenched conflicts in the Great Lakes region. The involvement of multiple armed groups, national armies, and external actors has created a volatile landscape where alliances shift and grievances persist.

A particularly contentious issue is the relationship between the Congolese army (FARDC) and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a militia with historical ties to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. If, as reports suggest, these two entities are aligned in their fight against the March 23 Movement (M23), the question arises: should Rwanda remain passive in the face of a force that directly threatens its national security?

The FDLR has long been a source of instability, not only in the DRC but also as a direct security threat to Rwanda. It is no secret that Kigali perceives the group's continued existence as an existential challenge. If the FARDC is indeed cooperating with the FDLR, then Rwanda’s security concerns are not just speculative but grounded in real threats. In such a scenario, does the principle of non-intervention hold, even when a state’s sovereignty is at stake? Or does Rwanda have the right to protect its borders and citizens from a hostile force operating under the shadow of another nation?

Despite numerous calls for dialogue, the Congolese government remains steadfast in its refusal to engage in dialogue with M23. This raises fundamental questions: What does Kinshasa know that it is unwilling to share? Is it fear of legitimising M23’s demands, or is there a deeper geopolitical strategy at play? The movement insists it is fighting for the rights of Congolese Tutsi, a community historically marginalised and targeted by other armed factions. If peaceful resolution is an option, why is it being dismissed in favour of prolonged warfare?

The instability in eastern Congo is not just a national issue—it has ramifications for the entire East African region. The presence of armed groups along the DRC-Rwanda-Uganda border threatens trade, regional integration, and peacebuilding efforts. Prolonged conflict risks fuelling further humanitarian crises, displacement, and economic setbacks.

The region's leaders must recognise that military solutions alone cannot resolve historical injustices or deep-seated ethnic tensions. Dialogue, regional cooperation, and an honest assessment of the root causes of conflict are crucial. If the Great Lakes region is to achieve lasting peace, it must prioritise negotiation over force, truth over propaganda, and regional stability over political expediency.Taking a side in this conflict is not easy. But what is clear is that continued bloodshed benefits no one. The question remains: Will the leaders involved choose war, or will they choose the path of peace? 

Mr Kevin Ayebare, advocate.
Practicing with Taslaf Advocates