The U.S. and U.K. imposed sanctions on Rwanda amid the Congo conflict, an act viewed as misguided. The M23 insurgency is largely a consequence of the Congolese government’s failures. Secretary Rubio’s approach has been criticized for lacking moral clarity and mischaracterizing roles between victim and aggressor. Effective solutions demand a regime change in Kinshasa and a reevaluation of international policies towards Congo.
In response to the warfare erupting in eastern Congo, the United States and the United Kingdom implemented sanctions against Rwanda’s defense minister and the spokesperson of the Congolese M23 insurgent group. However, this action is seen as counterproductive and morally misguided, similar to chastising a victim for retaliating against abuse.
The M23 insurgency in Congo arose from the Congolese government’s failure to maintain prior peace accords. President Felix Tshisekedi’s current tactics contribute to escalating ethnic strife, as well as providing sanctuary to those associated with the 1994 Rwandan genocide. While the M23 members may share ethnicity with Rwandans, it is fundamentally a Congolese movement that reflects the diverse ethnic landscape of the North and South Kivu regions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, following in the footsteps of his predecessor Antony Blinken, has exhibited a troubling lack of discernment in his approach to the Congo situation. Evidence suggests a severe mismanagement of the crisis on his part, showing a disregard for the complex reality on the ground.
Recent incursions by Rwandan forces into Goma uncovered substantial military stockpiles, which were indicative of a potential Congolese invasion. Although Rwandan troops are not stationed extensively in Congo, they have conducted specific preemptive operations targeting perceived threats.
Rubio’s approach has led to a distortion of roles between victim and aggressor. His actions resonate disturbingly with siding against Ukraine or Israel; for instance, had Israel or Ukraine acted preemptively against threats before invasion, the US would have supported those strikes. The human cost of the ongoing conflict is steep, as the ruling Tshisekedi administration bombards civilian populations in M23-controlled areas, such as Bukavu.
Narratives surrounding Rwanda’s alleged exploitation of eastern Congo stem from uninformed accounts by diplomats and UN officials detached from the region. Based on discussions with local entrepreneurs during an August visit to M23 territory, it is apparent that local trade practices are misconstrued. Businesses consider cross-border trading normal, mainly due to lesser customs duties compared to the substantial taxation imposed by the Congolese administration.
Historically, sanctions have proven ineffective in curtailing Congo’s continued decay and conflict. Had they been effective, many lives could have been saved. By aligning with the corrupt Congolese regime and its alliances with China, Rubio inadvertently constrains the M23 forces into a precarious position, as returning to pre-existing conditions poses significant risks to Rwanda. Sanctions currently pursued are unlikely to result in substantial progress towards human rights or stability in the region.
Forthcoming changes may necessitate a complete regime overhaul in Kinshasa to prevent cyclical violence. The regions of North and South Kivu could potentially benefit from arrangements similar to those of Iraqi Kurdistan. In light of this, the UN is urged to review its peacekeeping operations and disarm its camps, while Rubio should designate Burundi as a terrorist state and implement sanctions against Congo’s leadership to facilitate the emergence of peace in Africa’s Great Lakes region.
The actions taken by the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the crisis in eastern Congo have been deemed misdirected and ineffective. The complexity of the situation, characterized by the M23 insurgency and the Congolese government’s corrupt practices, requires a reevaluation of strategies to foster genuine peace and stability. The discussion highlights the need for a regime change in Kinshasa and a clearer understanding of local dynamics to avoid repeating past mistakes and protect human rights in the region.
Original Source: www.aei.org
