UN Security Council Demands Immediate End to M23 Offensive in DR Congo, Calls for Rwanda's Withdrawal

UN Security Council Condemns M23 Offensive in DR Congo, Demands Immediate End

The eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has experienced decades of conflict and instability, leading to significant challenges in terms of humanitarian and geopolitical crises. This region, rich in natural resources such as cobalt, gold, and coltan has been affected by ongoing conflicts, resource exploitation, and ethnic tensions for over 30 years. From the First Congo War (1996-1997), which saw the overthrow of a dictator, to the Second Congo War (1998-2003), often referred to as ‘Africa’s World War’ due to the involvement of nine nations and the loss of five million lives, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s history is a clear example of the severe consequences of greed and the lack of accountability. The resurgence of the M23 terrorist group poses a significant threat to the region, with the potential to ignite conflict with consequences that extend far beyond the borders of Central Africa.

In late 2023, the M23—a terrorist group initially defeated in 2013—reemerged with an alarming ferocity. The group, which is well-organised and equipped with advanced weaponry, seized control of key towns in North Kivu province, including Bunagana and Rutshuru, displacing 800,000 civilians within months. By early 2024, their influence had extended to the outskirts of Goma, a city of 2 million and the economic lifeline of eastern DRC. The group claims to defend Congolese Tutsi communities against ethnic violence, but the United Nations and human rights organisations accuse them of massacres, mass rape, and recruiting child soldiers.Bahati, a farmer from Masisi, now sheltering in a cramped camp near Goma, said: “They burned our homes and told us to never return. We have nowhere to go.”

The humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is of great concern. The number of internally displaced people in the country is the highest in Africa, at 6.9 million, while 23.4 million people are facing acute hunger, a figure which exceeds the combined totals of Syria and Yemen. There are also significant concerns regarding the health of those displaced, with overcrowded displacement camps suffering from cholera and measles. Women and children, who make up 80% of the displaced population, are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence and malnutrition. Aid groups have warned of a “generational catastrophe” in this area. 4.6 million children are out of school, and 1.5 million under age five risk severe wasting. Yet humanitarian access remains blocked by M23 checkpoints and bureaucratic hurdles.” We’re watching children starve while trucks of aid rot at the border,” laments a Médecins sans frontières worker.

In the midst of this crisis, the UN Security Council’s unanimous adoption of Resolution 2773 (2025) on [Date] signifies a rare moment of global unity, invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The resolution demands that the M23 cease hostilities, withdraw from occupied territories, and dismantle parallel administrations. The resolution also calls on Rwanda to halt support for the M23 and withdraw its troops, making a pointed reference to the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF), which has been accused of arming the rebels. For the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the resolution represents a vindication, as its UN ambassador has declared: “Three weeks of Council paralysis gave Rwanda free rein to occupy our land,” urging immediate implementation.

The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has significant regional implications. The neighbouring countries of Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi have all deployed troops under regional security pacts, while the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Hutu militia group linked to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, is exploiting the vacuum. Analysts have warned of a domino effect: if Goma falls, Uganda could intervene to protect its trade routes, Burundi to shield refugees, and Rwanda to secure its mineral interests. “This isn’t just Congo’s war—it’s a regional time bomb,” says the analyst.

The adoption of the resolution highlights a bitter irony: the very global powers that are now calling for peace have historically fuelled the conflict. Smartphones and electric vehicles, which rely on DRC’s cobalt, bind consumers to a supply chain that has been stained with blood minerals. Meanwhile, Rwanda, a favoured recipient of Western aid for its post-genocide reforms, is facing increasing scrutiny over its alleged role in destabilising the DRC.

As the Security Council considers its next steps, the world faces a moral and strategic dilemma: can diplomacy prevail where decades of intervention have not, or will eastern Congo become the epicentre of the next major conflict in Africa? The answer to this question depends not only on rebel disarmament or Rwandan withdrawal, but also on addressing the underlying causes: corruption, ethnic exclusion, and the global appetite for resources.

As one individual, Julienne, a teacher displaced on three occasions in five years, eloquently summarised, “We are tired of being a footnote in geopolitical games. When will the world see us as human beings?”

Time is of the essence.

Condemnation of M23 Offensives — A Threat to Sovereignty

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has passed Resolution 2773 (2025), which clearly condemns the M23 terrorist group’s brutal campaign in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), labelling its attacks in North and South Kivu provinces as a direct assault on the nation’s sovereignty. To understand the gravity of this condemnation, one must unravel the complex tapestry of M23’s resurgence, its tactics, and the chilling consequences for Congolese statehood.

M23’s Resurgence: From Dormancy to Dominance

The M23, also known as the Mouvement du 23 Mars, first emerged in 2012 as a splinter faction of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), a rebel group composed primarily of ethnic Tutsis. Their initial insurgency, driven by concerns over marginalisation and the breakdown of peace agreements, concluded in 2013 after a joint UN-DRC military offensive compelled them to seek refuge in Uganda and Rwanda. However, in late 2021, the group reorganised, capitalising on simmering discontent among Congolese Tutsis and alleged external support.

By late 2023, M23 terrorists had launched a blistering offensive, seizing strategic towns like Bunagana (a vital border hub for trade with Uganda) and encircling Goma, North Kivu’s capital and a linchpin for regional commerce. Satellite imagery analysed by the UN Group of Experts in January 2025 revealed trenches and fortified positions around Goma, while intercepted communications exposed M23’s terrorism coordination with foreign actors. A UN investigator noted that the group was not a rag-tag militia, but rather a well-oiled war machine, pointing to the group’s use of drones, heavy artillery, and sophisticated logistics.

Parallel Administrations: A State Within a State

The territorial gains made by M23 are not just of a military nature, but also have a significant political dimension. In areas such as Rutshuru and Masisi that are under occupation, the group has established parallel governance structures, imposed taxes, issued “official” documents and even appointed local administrators. A UN report from February 2025 documented M23-run courts and schools, effectively replacing state institutions. A trader from Kibumba, who fled to Goma after refusing to pay, stated that “they collect ‘taxes’ on everything—even the charcoal we sell”. These actions blatantly violate the DRC’s territorial integrity, eroding the social contract between citizens and the state.

Human Cost: Displacement and Atrocities

The humanitarian consequences are significant, with over 800,000 civilians displaced since October 2023, adding to the 6.9 million internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the largest such population in the world.In displacement camps near Goma, families have reported harrowing experiences of escaping villages that have been torched, men executed, and women subjected to systematic rape. A December 2024 Human Rights Watch report corroborated the massacre of 174 civilians in Kishishe, a village accused of collaborating with rival militias.A survivor, now in a camp run by the International Rescue Committee, testified, “They lined up my brothers and shot them.”

Children are particularly affected by this violence. UNICEF estimates that M23 terrorists have recruited over 1,200 child soldiers since 2023, often through coercion or abduction.A 14-year-old survivor, Jacques (name changed), recounted his experience of being forced to fight for the militia: “They gave me a gun and told me to fight or die.” He was rescued by MONUSCO in a January 2025 raid.

Roots of Resurgence: Grievances and Geopolitics

M23 has stated that its campaign is in defence of Congolese Tutsi communities, who it says are facing persecution from groups like the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Hutu militia group that is linked to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. However, critics have argued that this narrative masks darker ambitions. Experts from the DRC and the UN have alleged Rwanda’s direct involvement, citing Rwandan ammunition found in M23 terrorist caches and intercepted phone calls between M23 commanders and Rwandan military officials. Rwanda has denied these claims, countering that the DRC collaborates with the FDLR, a designated terrorist group.

This cycle of blame highlights a deeper crisis: the DRC’s failure to address ethnic tensions and governance gaps. As a Congolese civil society leader succinctly observed, “M23 terrorists fill a vacuum. When the state doesn’t protect you, you turn to whoever has guns.”

The UNSC’s Dilemma: Words vs. Action

While Resolution 2773 calls for the M23 militants to “immediately cease hostilities”, it lacks enforceable measures, a recurring issue in UN responses. Previous sanctions and arms embargoes have had limited success in restraining the group’s ambitions.MONUSCO, the UN peacekeeping mission, is facing increasing criticism for its perceived inaction. In March 2025, demonstrators in Goma set fire to MONUSCO vehicles, chanting, “Where were you when M23 terrorists advanced?”

The resolution’s key strength is its unanimous support, with even Rwanda’s long-standing allies, such as the U.S. and the UK, endorsing calls for withdrawal. However, the text risks becoming a hollow gesture without robust mechanisms, such as targeted sanctions on Rwandan officials or a regional arms embargo. As a Congolese diplomat noted, “Resolutions don’t stop bullets. We need action, not applause.”

Why This Matters Beyond the DRC

The success of M23 has emboldened other armed groups, thereby fuelling a metastasising conflict that poses a threat to regional stability. Uganda and Burundi have deployed troops under bilateral agreements, while Rwanda’s alleged involvement risks drawing Kinshasa into confrontation with Kigali. The African Union has warned of a “domino effect” that could destabilise Central Africa’s fragile peace.

Furthermore, the M23 model – a terrorist group leveraging ethnic rhetoric, external support, and resource control – poses a significant threat to global security by offering a blueprint for insurgencies elsewhere. As global demand for cobalt and coltan surges, the ongoing conflict for DRC’s minerals risks entrenching this violence indefinitely.

A Test of Sovereignty

The UNSC’s condemnation is a necessary step, but the DRC’s sovereignty hinges on what comes next. Will the international community pressure Rwanda to cut ties with M23 terrorists? Can Kinshasa address the root causes of ethnic strife? And will MONUSCO evolve to protect civilians under fire?

For now, the Congolese people remain caught in the crossfire. As farmer Jean-Baptiste from Rutshuru lamented: “Our land is rich, but our lives are worth nothing.”

Call for Rwandan Withdrawal and Accountability — A Delicate Balancing Act

The UN Security Council’s demand for Rwanda to cease support for the M23 terrorist group and withdraw its forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a pivotal yet delicate element of Resolution 2773. This call, rooted in mounting evidence of Kigali’s involvement, impacts regional geopolitics, accountability, and the enduring scars of history.

The Weight of Evidence: UN Reports and Regional Allegations

Reports from the UN Group of Experts, as well as independent analysts and NGOs, have provided evidence that points to Rwanda’s involvement in the matter. The key findings are as follows:

Weapons Transfers: Rwandan-made ammunition and uniforms were found in the possession of M23 terrorists, and were traced to Rwandan military stockpiles.
Troop Incursions: Satellite imagery from December 2024 shows Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) units operating in the vicinity of M23 terrorist strongholds in North Kivu.
Financial Networks: There is evidence to suggest that Rwandan officials have been involved in cryptocurrency transactions linked to M23 terrorist procurement networks. These transactions have included the purchase of drones and artillery.

An investigation by The Sentry in January 2025 revealed that M23 terrorists commanders received medical treatment in Rwandan military hospitals, while RDF officers were embedded in M23 units during the capture of Bunagana. The Rwandan government has dismissed these claims as “fabrications,” attributing the conflict to the DRC’s failure to disarm the FDLR—a Hutu militia with génocidaires linked to Rwanda’s 1994 genocide.

The U.S. Sanctions: Symbolism or Substance?

In February 2025, the U.S. imposed targeted sanctions on James Kabarebe, Rwanda’s Minister of State for Regional Integration and a close ally of Criminal Paul Kagame, and Lawrence Kanyuka Kingston, M23 terrorist’s spokesperson. Kabarebe, a former Rwandan defence chief, is accused of orchestrating cross-border operations, while Kingston’s companies allegedly funnelled arms to M23 terrorists via Ugandan intermediaries.

While these sanctions are considered a sign of Western frustration, the impact of the measures is debated. Assets belonging to Kabarebe in Europe were frozen, but Rwanda’s economy, which is supported by tourism and tech investments, remains resilient. Critics argue that broader measures, such as suspending Rwanda’s preferential trade status under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), would heighten pressure. However, the U.S. is exercising caution, as Rwanda is a key counterterrorism partner in East Africa and hosts 130,000 Congolese refugees.

Rwanda’s Counter-Narrative: Security and Sovereignty

Rwanda’s UN delegate presented the resolution to the Council, characterising it as ‘neocolonial interference’ and accusing Western powers of ‘intimidating African voices’ while ignoring Kinshasa’s collusion with the FDLR. Kigali has asserted that its actions are defensive in nature, citing cross-border shelling by Congolese forces and FDLR attacks that killed 15 Rwandan civilians in 2024.

A central tenet of Rwanda’s argument is the plight of Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese Tutsis, who face systemic discrimination and violence. According to the UNHCR, over 200,000 Congolese Tutsis have fled to Rwanda since 2022. Rwanda’s foreign minister asserted that the DRC treats its Tutsi citizens as foreigners, and that until Kinshasa addresses this, instability will persist.

The Geopolitical Tightrope

The call for Rwandan withdrawal has put regional alliances under strain. Uganda and Burundi, both RDF allies, have troops in the DRC under bilateral agreements, complicating AU mediation.Meanwhile, Angola and Kenya are leading the Luanda and Nairobi processes, advocating dialogue over escalation.

Rwanda’s strategic importance cannot be overstated: a darling of Western donors for its post-genocide economic revival, it also supplies 60% of the world’s coltan stolen from DR Congo, vital for electronics. This leverage insulates Kigali from harsher repercussions.

Accountability Beyond Sanctions

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has formally submitted a complaint to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding what it refers to as “acts of armed aggression” by Rwanda. A ruling by the court could mandate reparations, though the enforcement mechanisms remain uncertain. Concurrently, the ICC is conducting an investigation into alleged atrocities perpetrated by M23. However, Rwanda, which is not a member of the ICC, is declining to recognise the court’s jurisdiction.

A Path Forward?

The resolution’s success is dependent on achieving a balance between pressure and diplomacy. The African Union’s proposal for a “neutral verification mechanism” to monitor border activity presents a pragmatic approach. Furthermore, addressing Congolese Tutsi grievances through constitutional reforms has the potential to reduce M23 terrorist recruitment.

As a Congolese human rights advocate observes, “Sanctions alone are insufficient. There is a need for justice for victims and inclusive governance.”

Urgent Need for Diplomatic Dialogue — The Luanda and Nairobi Processes

The ongoing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has highlighted the limitations of military solutions, emphasising the urgent need for sustained diplomatic engagement. Key to regional efforts to de-escalate tensions are the Luanda and Nairobi processes, two African-led initiatives that have become vital, albeit delicate, sources of hope.

The Luanda Process: Angola’s Mediation Gambit

Following the resurgence of the M23 as a terrorist group in late 2022, the Luanda Process was brokered by Angola as a direct response. The initiative, named after the Angolan capital where talks began, aims to address security concerns between the DRC and Rwanda through confidence-building measures. Key milestones include:

November 2022 Ceasefire Agreement: A significant development was achieved with the agreement between Rwanda and the DRC, where Rwanda committed to encouraging M23 terrorists to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the DRC agreed to disarm the FDLR.
Joint Verification Mechanism: Established in 2023, this cross-border team was charged with investigating ceasefire violations. However, it disbanded within months amid mutual accusations of bias.

Angola’s President João Lourenço has used his country’s historical role as a regional stabiliser to frame the process as a “brotherly dialogue”. However, progress has been hindered by distrust. Rwanda accuses Kinshasa of “foot-dragging” on FDLR disarmament, while the DRC claims Kigali uses the FDLR as a pretext to justify backing M23 terrorists.

The Nairobi Process: Kenya’s Quest for Regional Buy-In

In parallel with Luanda, the Nairobi Process — spearheaded by Kenya’s former President Uhuru Kenyatta — focuses on broader regional reconciliation. Initiated in 2022 under the East African Community (EAC), it established an EAC Regional Force in late 2023 to “neutralise” armed groups in eastern DRC. The force comprises troops from Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, and South Sudan.

While the force initially secured modest gains, such as opening humanitarian corridors near Goma, it faltered due to:

Lack of Coordination: There are competing national interests among EAC members. Uganda and Burundi have prioritised bilateral agreements with Kinshasa, which undermines the unified command.
M23 terrorist’s Defiance: The group declined to engage in the discussions, branding the EAC as a “Congolese puppet.”

Why Dialogue Matters: Breaking the Cycle of Blame

The DRC and Rwanda are engaged in a persistent exchange of hostile rhetoric. Kinshasa refers to the conflict as a “Rwandan invasion”, while Kigali asserts that it is defending itself from FDLR génocidaires. This exchange of bellicose rhetoric is a contributing factor to the populist posturing observed on both sides.

DRC: President Félix Tshisekedi, who is facing reelection in 2026, has adopted a hardline stance, vowing to “liberate every inch of Congolese soil.”
Rwanda:Criminal Paul Kagame, acknowledging historical grievances, characterises the inaction of the FDLR as “genocide denial”.

In the absence of dialogue, this cycle has the potential to escalate into direct state-to-state conflict. A 2024 report by the International Crisis Group highlights that cross-border shelling and troop buildups along the DRC-Rwanda border have brought the two nations “closer to war than at any point since the 1990s.”

Stalled Progress: A History of Broken Promises

Both processes have suffered repeated setbacks:

Failed Ceasefires: Since 2022, seven ceasefires have been negotiated, but none have held for more than 30 days. The longest ceasefire, which came into effect in March 2024, ended when M23 terrorists ambushed a Congolese army convoy just hours after it had been signed.
EAC Force Withdrawal: In early 2025, Kenya and Burundi withdrew their troops, citing a “lack of political will” on the part of Kinshasa to pursue dialogue.

Trust deficits are being exacerbated by external actors. The DRC has strengthened its military ties with the Wagner Group mercenaries (now rebranded as the Africa Corps), while Rwanda is leveraging its alliance with Uganda and the UK, which provides 20% of its military training budget.

A Glimmer of Hope? The Goma Summit

In a rare moment of optimism, regional leaders met in Goma in January 2025 under the auspices of the African Union. The summit proposed merging the Luanda and Nairobi processes into a unified framework, with a renewed focus on:

Disarmament Timelines: It is imperative that binding commitments are made to demobilise M23 terrorists and FDLR within 18 months.
Cross-Border Trade: The decision has been taken to reopen the Rwanda-DRC border, which has been closed since 2022, with a view to alleviating economic tensions.
Truth and Reconciliation: A regional commission has been established to address historical grievances, including the mass displacement of Kihutu-speaking Congolese.

However, the implementation of these measures remains uncertain. As a Congolese civil society leader has cautioned: “Summits produce papers, not peace.”

The Role of the International Community

The UNSC’s Resolution 2773 clearly endorses these processes, but tangible support is lacking. Donors have allocated just 12% of the $400 million requested by the AU to fund mediation efforts. Meanwhile, the U.S., EU, and China — key players in the DRC’s mining sector — have yet to leverage their economic clout to pressure the parties involved to engage in talks.

The Cost of Failure

Without urgent diplomatic breakthroughs, the consequences are dire:

Humanitarian Catastrophe: It is estimated that 1.2 million people in North Kivu are facing imminent famine if access to aid is not restored.
Regional Spillover: Uganda has threatened unilateral intervention to secure its $1.3 billion annual trade with the DRC, while Burundi accuses Rwanda of backing its own exiled rebels.

“We are tired of being pawns in a game we didn’t create,” said a Goma-based activist. “Either our leaders talk, or we all burn.”

A Call for Courage

Dialogue necessitates compromises that may cause discomfort. Rwanda must consent to independent verification of its withdrawal, while the DRC must address issues of minority marginalisation. As Sierra Leone’s envoy emphasised, “Peace is not a victory lap—it’s a marathon of difficult choices.”

The Luanda and Nairobi processes, though challenged, remain the most effective mechanisms to prevent a regional war. Their viability hinges on a fundamental question: Are leaders willing to prioritise the well-being of their people over their ego?

Humanitarian Concerns and Access — A Race Against Time

The situation in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is of great concern. Millions of people are caught up in a spiral of violence, disease, and poverty. As terrorist groups such as M23 tighten their grip on key routes, aid organisations are warning of a “systematic collapse” of basic services, leaving civilians to face an immense amount of suffering.

A Health System in Ruins

The healthcare infrastructure in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is currently on life support due to the impact of decades of conflict. Since 2023, over 400 health facilities have been looted or destroyed, affecting 3.8 million people who can no longer access critical care.In Masisi and Rutshuru, hospitals that were previously equipped to treat trauma injuries and maternal emergencies are now in ruins. In Goma, the sole functioning hospital serves 2 million people and Dr. Marie Kanyamutumba, a physician there, has described the situation as follows: “We’re performing surgeries by phone torch.”

The region is already endemic for cholera, and this has now become a full-blown epidemic. Between January and May 2025, 42,000 cases were reported, with a fatality rate of 4.3%—double the emergency threshold. Displacement camps, lacking clean water and sanitation, have become breeding grounds for disease. In Bulengo camp, home to 80,000 displaced people, families share latrines with 300 others. Kahindo, a mother of three, said, “My children drink dirty water because there’s no choice.”

Displacement: The World’s Largest Crisis

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) currently hosts the highest number of internally displaced people (IDPs) globally, with a total of 6.9 million IDPs. This figure includes over 800,000 individuals who have fled the country since 2024, many of whom have been forced to relocate multiple times. In North Kivu, IDPs are often accommodated in open fields or overcrowded schools, where there is a high prevalence of sexual violence. According to a UN Women report, 72% of displaced women in the region have survived gender-based violence, often perpetrated by armed men at checkpoints.

Children are particularly affected; UNICEF estimates 4.6 million children are acutely malnourished, with 1.5 million under five at risk of starvation. In camps such as Kanyaruchinya, infants succumb to preventable diseases like measles and malaria. As one camp volunteer, Jacques Mubenga, notes, “We’ve buried 12 children this month.”

Humanitarian Access: A Deadly Obstacle Course

The resolution 2773 call for “temporary humanitarian corridors” is a vital lifeline, but implementation remains challenging due to the ongoing obstruction of aid convoys by terrorist groups, who are demanding bribes or confiscating supplies. In March 2025, M23 terrorists looted 12 World Food Programme (WFP) trucks carrying 240 metric tons of food near Sake, equivalent to feeding 40,000 people for a month.

Bureaucratic delays are exacerbated by the DRC government requiring aid groups to obtain 14 separate permits to operate in conflict zones, a process that can take months. As a frustrated coordinator from Médecins sans frontières (MSF) highlighted, the delay in the process results in children facing starvation.

Funding Crisis: The World Looks Away

The international community’s response to the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been suboptimal. As of June 2025, only 12% of the United Nations’ $2.6 billion appeal for the DRC has been funded, compared to 67% of the funds allocated to Ukraine’s 2024 humanitarian plan. This discrepancy in funding underscores a clear double standard. As UN Humanitarian Coordinator Bruno Lemarquis lamented, the crisis in Congo is deemed ‘too complex’ or ‘too chronic’ for donors to provide adequate funding.

The funding gap has forced the WFP to cut rations by 50%, while UNICEF has suspended vaccination programmes in three provinces. Without urgent injections of cash, 8 million people will lose access to food aid by August.

Voices from the Ground: “We Are Forgotten”

In the face of global indifference, the resilience of the Congolese people is waning, as evidenced by statements such as “We sleep in the bush, afraid of bullets,” voiced by Kahindo, reflecting the widespread despair. Amani, a 16-year-old who fled the M23 terrorist attacks in Masisi, articulates the frustration of many, questioning the global response: “Why does the world send weapons but no food?”

Local NGOs, often the primary responders, are facing existential threats. Staff from the Congolese Red Cross have reported being targeted by terrorist groups for wearing emblems, and one volunteer stated that supplies are being taken by these groups.

The Cost of Inaction

If access and funding remain blocked, the consequences will be felt for generations to come:

Famine: It is estimated that 23.4 million people are facing acute hunger, with 3.4 million children at risk of dying from malnutrition by 2026.
Lost Generation: It is estimated that 4.6 million children are currently not in education, which is likely to have a significant impact on recruitment levels by terrorist groups.
Regional Spread: Cholera outbreaks have already spread to Uganda and Rwanda.

A Call for Courage

The establishment of humanitarian corridors, as witnessed during Ethiopia’s Tigray war, has the potential to save lives. However, this initiative necessitates robust security guarantees and regional cooperation. Donor countries must increase their contributions: a mere 5% of global military spending, equivalent to $2.2 trillion in 2024, could fully fund the humanitarian appeal in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

As time passes, the global community is confronted with a moral dilemma: will it take action to avert another preventable catastrophe, or allow the situation in eastern Congo to deteriorate unnoticed?

Support for MONUSCO and Rejection of Military Solutions — A Fragile Lifeline

The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) is one of the largest and most expensive peacekeeping operations in UN history. With 16,000 personnel and an annual budget of $1.2 billion, MONUSCO has been a critical buffer against total collapse in eastern DRC since 2010. However, the mission is facing increasing opposition from terrorist groups, disillusioned civilians and even the Congolese government, which has demanded its exit by 2024. The resolution 2773 reaffirms the UN’s support for MONUSCO, acknowledging its vital role, but the mission’s future remains uncertain as it navigates a complex political landscape, operational challenges and the recognition that military force alone is not sufficient to resolve the crises in Congo.

MONUSCO’s Mandate: Protection Amid Peril

MONUSCO’s mandate, which is renewed on an annual basis, is centred on two key pillars:

Protection of Civilians: The use of force is intended to deter attacks on populated areas.
Support for Peace Processes: The process of disarmament is being facilitated, and state authority is being reinforced.

In 2024, MONUSCO’s intervention brigades successfully repelled the M23 terrorist advance near Goma, saving an estimated 50,000 civilians. Aerial surveillance drones and quick-reaction patrols have disrupted terrorist supply routes, while its engineers have rebuilt critical bridges for aid delivery. A Congolese army colonel acknowledged that, without MONUSCO, Goma would have fallen a long time ago.

However, significant shortcomings eclipse these achievements.A 2025 UN internal review revealed that MONUSCO troops failed to respond to 60% of civilian distress calls in Ituri and North Kivu due to “resource gaps and risk aversion.” In Beni, where the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) massacred 200 villagers in March 2025, survivors accused peacekeepers of remaining entrenched in bases. A local elder voiced the frustration of the community, stating, “They have tanks and helicopters—why don’t they fight?”

The Backlash: Protests, Politics, and a Push for Exit

Public frustration has led to significant protests, with riots erupting in Goma in July 2024 following the killing of 30 civilians in a MONUSCO-patrolled zone by M23 terrorists. Protesters expressed their discontent by burning UN vehicles and chanting, “MONUSCO dégage!” (MONUSCO, get out!). Congolese authorities have exacerbated the situation, with President Félix Tshisekedi declaring the mission “obsolete” and urging a “DRC-led solution.”

Kinshasa’s 2024 exit demand reflects a broader African trend of rejecting prolonged UN missions, as evidenced by Mali and the Central African Republic’s expulsion of peacekeepers in 2023 in favour of Russian-backed security. Meanwhile, the DRC has enlisted the services of the Wagner Group (rebranded as the Africa Corps) to combat M23 terrorists, a move that has been criticised for its potential to further human rights abuses.

A Lesson from History: Why Military Solutions Fail

MONUSCO is facing challenges that are similar to those experienced by its predecessor, MONUC (1999–2010). MONUC was criticised for its actions during the Congo Wars, when it was accused of ‘peacekeeping amid genocide’. Despite having clear mandates, both missions have encountered significant difficulties:

Proxy Warfare: The presence of external actors (for example, Rwanda and Uganda) has been identified as a contributing factor to the instability in the region, with these actors being accused of providing arms to terrorist organisations.
Political Sabotage: It is evident that Congolese elites frequently impede peace initiatives with the primary objective of perpetuating conflict economies.
Resource Constraints: The operational reach is constrained by two interrelated factors: chronic underfunding and troop shortages.

The 2013 defeat of M23 terrorists, achieved through a joint UN-DRC offensive, serves to exemplify the potential of MONUSCO. However, the victory was short-lived, as M23 regrouped and terrorism subsequently escalated. As a former MONUSCO force commander observes, “Military victories without political accords are akin to applying a Plaster to a bullet wound”.

The Paradox of Peacekeeping

The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) finds itself in a quandary, characterised by a contradictory role. The mission is charged with the responsibility of facilitating political solutions in a region where politics is weaponised. While MONUSCO has successfully trained 12,000 Congolese police officers and facilitated local ceasefires, it is incapable of rectifying the deficiencies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s governance structure. Corruption has been identified as a major issue, with an estimated 30% of state revenue being misappropriated. Additionally, there have been reports of army units engaging in the sale of weapons to terrorist groups. A European diplomat has stated that MONUSCO is unable to rectify a state that is not functioning.

The Exit Debate: Risks and Realities

The position adopted by Kinshasa, which is to encourage the MONUSCO to leave by 2024, has given rise to a divergence of opinion:

Pro-Exit Camp: The argument is posited that the mission fosters dependency. The case of South Sudan is then adduced, where the presence of the United Nations since 2011 has not prevented civil war.
Anti-Exit Camp: It is asserted that a security vacuum has been created. The withdrawal of MONUSCO from Tanganyika Province in 2022 is said to have precipitated an escalation in clashes between Twa and Luba groups, resulting in the displacement of 300,000 individuals.

The United Nations has proposed a phased withdrawal of security forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in favour of Congolese forces and regional partners, such as the East African Community (EAC). However, the EAC’s 2023–2025 deployment has achieved only limited success, and the Congolese army remains inadequately equipped.

The Path Ahead: Hybrid Solutions

It is imperative that Resolution 2773’s endorsement of MONUSCO is complemented by:

Conditional Withdrawal:The establishment of a correlation between the temporal parameters of exit timelines and quantifiable advancements in security measures is imperative.
Regional Partnerships: The integration of AU and EAC forces under a unified command constitutes a significant aspect of the overall strategy.
Governance Reforms: The present study explores the correlation between aid and anti-corruption benchmarks.

As the M23 terrorist advance continues unabated, MONUSCO’s helicopters remain the last line of defence for millions. Yet, as a displaced mother in Rutshuru asked, “If the UN leaves, who will hear us scream?”

Illicit Exploitation of Natural Resources — Fueling the Fire

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been referred to as a “geological scandal” in light of its abundant mineral wealth, which is characterised by a dichotomy: its cobalt, coltan, gold, and tin reserves represent a significant economic opportunity, yet they concurrently serve as a catalyst for ongoing terrorism. Terrorist outfits such as the M23 and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) have exploited these resources to fund their activities, with an estimated annual expenditure of $1–3 billion on military hardware and operations. Despite the condemnation of this “systematic illicit exploitation” in UN Resolution 2773, enforcement remains significantly inadequate, perpetuating a cycle where minerals fund terrorists and terrorists control minerals.

The Minerals of Misery: Cobalt, Coltan, and Conflict

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is responsible for the extraction of 70% of the world’s cobalt, a critical component of electric vehicle (EV) batteries, and holds 80% of global coltan reserves, which are essential for electronics. These minerals, which are worth billions on international markets, are extracted under duress in eastern Congo by M23 terrorists and FDLR forces. Mines are seized, illegal “taxes” are imposed on artisanal miners, and minerals are smuggled through neighbouring Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. A 2024 UN Group of Experts report revealed that 80% of gold from Ituri province is trafficked via Uganda, laundered into legal supply chains.

Case Study: The Cobalt Connection
In Kolwezi, a major cobalt hub, terrorist groups and corrupt officials exploit 40,000 child labourers in hazardous open-pit mines. As one miner, Kofi, explains, “I started digging at 12. The tunnels collapse, but we have no choice”. This cobalt, crucial to the green energy transition, is produced in contexts of significant exploitation, with electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers often lacking visibility into their supply chains. Notably, prominent corporations such as Tesla and Apple, despite making commitments to ethical sourcing, have been subject to legal action, accused of having links to Congolese “blood minerals.”

From Mines to Militias: How Resources Fuel War

The financial resources obtained from illegal mining activities are used by terrorist groups to procure weapons such as Kalashnikov rifles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and propaganda materials. For instance:

M23’s Resurgence: The financial resources allocated to the outfit’s 2023 offensive in Rutshuru were derived from the profits generated by the sale of coltan, which facilitated the procurement of night-vision goggles and mortar systems.
FDLR’s Extortion Networks: The group imposes a tax on tin miners in Walikale, generating an annual revenue of $20 million.

It is evident that such groups are able to operate with impunity, protected by complicit military officers and local officials. A 2025 investigation by Global Witness exposed the fact that Congolese army generals were skimming 30% of mining revenues in exchange for security permits.

The Enforcement Gap: Why Laws Fail on the Ground

The UN sanctions and the 2010 US Dodd-Frank Act’s conflict minerals rule aimed to disrupt this trade, but loopholes abound (UN, 2022). The Kimberley Process, successful in curbing “blood diamonds” (UN, 2014), has no equivalent for cobalt or coltan. Smugglers exploit porous borders, bribing customs agents to falsify certificates (UN, 2022). Meanwhile, the DRC’s state mining company, Gécamines, lacks the capacity to monitor 2,000+ artisanal sites.

Technological companies are complicit in this situation. While companies like Glencore claim to have “clean” supply chains, a 2024 OECD audit found that 60% of Congolese cobalt is untraceable. Initiatives such as IBM’s Responsible Sourcing Platform have stalled due to corruption and a lack of infrastructure.

Environmental and Human Catastrophe

Illegal mining ravages ecosystems and lives:

Deforestation: It is estimated that 15% of Congo Basin rainforests have been degraded by mining activities.
Toxic Pollution: The presence of mercury in gold mining activities has been demonstrated to result in the contamination of water resources, which has in turn led to the poisoning of 12 million individuals.
Gender-Based Violence: In mining towns, women are subject to widespread sexual exploitation, with 65% reporting instances of assault by armed individuals.

Solutions: Transparency, Tech, and Accountability

In order to break the conflict-resource nexus, the following measures must be taken:

Supply Chain Transparency: The EU’s 2023 Critical Raw Materials Act proposes the implementation of blockchain tracing for all minerals.
Sanction Enforcers: To address the issue of mineral smuggling and the involvement of foreign buyers, the United States opted to sanction a Belgian businessman involved in the gold trade, Alain Goetz, who is based in Rwanda. This decision was made in 2022, and it follows similar actions taken by the European Union and the United States, who have also sanctioned Goetz for his alleged involvement in the illicit gold trade from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The imposition of these sanctions is attributable to his alleged exploitation of gold mined in conflict zones, a practice which has been demonstrated to fuel armed conflict and human rights abuses in the region.
Community Empowerment: It is recommended that support be given to Fair Congo, an organisation that provides training to miners in order to enable them to circumvent warlords and sell their produce directly to ethical buyers.

The Road Ahead

The call for action in Resolution 2773 is a crucial juncture in the discourse surrounding the ethical sourcing of minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). As Congolese activist Julienne Lusenge asserts, the global community must recognise the ethical implications of the technology we use daily, particularly smartphones. She contends that these devices should come with a label signifying their potential to be made with the blood of her compatriots. The onus is on the international community to decide whether to prioritise responsible supply chains or allow the DRC’s mineral wealth to persist as a source of contention.

African-Led Solutions and Regional Cooperation — A Path Forward

The pursuit of enduring peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is contingent upon a foundational verity: sustainable solutions must be derived from African leadership and regional solidarity. As China’s envoy to the UN emphasised, “Solving African issues the African way isn’t a slogan—it’s a necessity” (UN, n.d.). This philosophy undergirds initiatives such as the African Union’s (AU) Peace and Security Council frameworks, the Luanda Process, and the Nairobi Process. Nevertheless, these initiatives may face challenges in achieving their full potential without substantial financial support, political cohesion, and effective global collaborations.

The Imperative of African-Led Solutions

The historical legacy of colonial exploitation and external interventions in Africa has led to a widespread consensus that the establishment of lasting peace is contingent on the implementation of domestic strategies. Regional actors are uniquely positioned to contribute to these efforts due to their in-depth understanding of the contextual nuances and their significant cultural influence. For instance, Angola’s role in mediating the Luanda Process draws upon its experience as a stabilising force in the post-civil war era, while Kenya’s involvement in the Nairobi Process leverages its economic influence within the East African region. These initiatives prioritise the promotion of dialogue over the use of military force, addressing fundamental issues such as ethnic marginalisation and governance deficiencies.

Why It Works:

Cultural Resonance: The efficacy of local mediators in navigating kinship ties and historical grievances is often superior to that of foreign envoys.
Ownership: In the context of African-led processes, there is a notable propensity to engender a sense of engagement among conflicting parties. A salient illustration of this phenomenon is evident in the 2023 EAC-led ceasefire talks, where African leadership played a pivotal role in fostering constructive engagement among diverse stakeholders.

The African Union’s Peace and Security Council: Orchestrating Regional Responses

The African Union Peace and Security Council (PSC) has assumed a pivotal role in conflict resolution, advocating for “African solutions to African problems.” In 2024, the PSC issued a seminal directive, urging the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda to de-escalate tensions through the Luanda and Nairobi frameworks. The directive also proposed a hybrid peacekeeping force, integrating African Union (AU) troops with United Nations (UN) logistical support, a model previously implemented in Somalia under the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

Successes and Shortfalls:

AMISOM’s Legacy: The African Union’s (AU) capacity to reduce Al-Shabaab’s territorial control in Somalia by 70% between 2010 and 2020 is indicative of its ability to intervene in the region.
Funding Gaps: AU missions are reliant on volatile donor contributions; AMISOM, for example, faced a $400 million shortfall in 2022, which had a significant impact on operational capacity.

The Luanda and Nairobi Processes: Test Cases for Regional Mediation

Luanda Process (Angola):
The initiative, brokered in 2022, was successful in facilitating détente between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with Rwanda pledging to pressure the M23 to withdraw and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) committing to disarm. However, the 2023 resurgence of the M23 terrorists and the stalled FDLR demobilisation exposed the initiative’s fragility.

Nairobi Process (EAC/Kenya):
The deployment of an EAC Regional Force (2023) to “neutralise” terrorist groups was initiated concurrently with the launch of operations in Luanda. The establishment of humanitarian corridors around Goma was a notable development, however, internal discord, with Uganda and Burundi prioritising bilateral agreements, served to undermine the operational cohesion of the force.

Funding and Political Will: The Twin Pillars of Success

The implementation of African-led initiatives is often impeded by two interrelated factors: firstly, the presence of chronic underfunding, and secondly, the fragmentation of politics:

Financial Challenges: The AU’s 2024 peace fund received a mere 12% of its $300 million target, resulting in a reliance on erratic EU and UN contributions.
Political Divisions: The presence of competing interests in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) by Rwanda and Uganda has been identified as a key factor in the absence of consensus among the parties involved. Additionally, the reliance of the government in Kinshasa on the Wagner Group, a Russian military and security company, has been noted as a contributing factor to the challenges in establishing trust within the context of regional dialogue.

A Call for Investment:It is estimated that by redirecting 5% of global military expenditure ($2.2 trillion in 2024), the necessary resources could be allocated to fully finance AU peace efforts for a decade.

Synergy with the UN: The question therefore arises whether such an approach can be considered a force multiplier or rather a hindrance?

The endorsement of African-led processes by UN Resolution 2773 is of pivotal significance. However, tangible support remains deficient. The annual budget of MONUSCO is 1.2 billion, whereas that of the EAC Regional Force is 200 million. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing prevalence of mandates that overlap, and communication gaps persist. The successful establishment of synergy is predicated on the following:

Coordinated Mandates: It is imperative to align MONUSCO’s withdrawal with the readiness of EAC forces.
Resource Sharing: It is imperative that the United Nations airlift capabilities are utilised for the deployment of African Union troops.

Case Studies: Lessons from Past Interventions

Liberia (ECOWAS, 2003): Post-civil war, the stabilisation of the nation was achieved by West African troops, thereby paving the way for democratic elections.
South Sudan (IGAD, 2015): The collapse of peace agreements was precipitated by two key factors: political infighting and inadequate funding.

The Path Forward: Sustaining Momentum Amid Challenges

In order to circumvent stagnation, stakeholders must:

Pool Resources: The establishment of an AU-led trust fund, with guaranteed contributions from mineral-rich states and tech firms profiting from DRC’s resources, is recommended.
Strengthen Accountability: It is recommended that regional spoilers be sanctioned via AU mechanisms, as evidenced by Mali’s 2022 suspension.
Amplify Civil Society:To achieve a comprehensive and sustainable resolution to the conflict, it is essential to incorporate grassroots organisations into the peace negotiations. This approach will ensure that all voices are heard and that the search for solutions is as inclusive as possible.

Conclusion: A Continent’s Call to Action

As Angolan President João Lourenço emphasised, “It is imperative that we prioritise the preservation of lives and the cessation of bloodshed—not through superficial rhetoric, but through the implementation of tangible actions”. The international community must transition from a position of paternalism to one of collaboration, providing financial support to African ingenuity rather than imposing external blueprints. The future of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the stability of the African continent are contingent on this transition.

Warnings of Escalation — A Regional War on the Horizon

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is no longer merely teetering on the brink of crisis; it is, in fact, plunging into an abyss that threatens to engulf Central Africa.As South Korea’s UN envoy starkly warned, “The entire DRC is at stake.” The initial localized terrorism by the M23 has evolved into a regional conflagration, with Ugandan, Burundian, and Rwandan forces entrenched in the DRC’s mineral-rich east. The convergence of diplomatic tensions, historical grievances, and competing economic interests has led to a state of heightened tension, which has the potential to result in a conflict that could be more devastating than the 1998–2003 Congo Wars, which resulted in the loss of 5 million lives.

The Regional Domino Effect: Neighbors at the Brink

The strategic manoeuvre devised by the regime of Uganda:
Uganda has deployed 1,500 troops under a bilateral agreement to combat the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a Ugandan rebel group operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). However, Kampala’s more profound interest lies in securing the Kasindi-Beni trade corridor, a vital route for its $1.3 billion annual exports to the DRC. In March 2025, Museveni, the Ugandan war criminal, issued a warning that unilateral intervention would be undertaken if the M23 terrorists were to jeopardise this lifeline, stating, “We will not let our economy bleed.”
Burundi’s security calculus:
Burundi, which is hosting 85,000 refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has deployed 2,000 troops to South Kivu province. This deployment is ostensibly intended to combat the RED-Tabara Terrorists, a Burundian terrorist outfit. However, analysts have posited that the underlying motivations behind this deployment are likely to be more sinister, with Bujumbura seeking to quell any potential opposition and to exert control over cross-border activities, particularly the smuggling of gold and tin.
Rwanda’s Existential Fears:
Rwanda’s alleged support for the M23 terrorist group stems from the country’s long-standing security concerns, particularly in light of the FDLR’s alleged involvement in armed conflict with the Kigali regime.The FDLR is a militant group operating in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) that has been active since the late 1990s.There is, however, no evidence to support this claim that it has the capacity to conduct military operations in Rwanda, as its commanders are already working with the Rwandan Defence Forces. The Rwandan regime perceives the M23 terrorists as a strategic asset, but its approach carries significant risks.This is evidenced by the April 2025 incident, in which Congolese forces launched a shelling attack on Rwandan territory in pursuit of the M23 terrorists, marking the first direct state-to-state confrontation since 2012.

The Shadow of History: Echoes of “Africa’s World War”

The Congo wars of 1998-2003 drew in nine countries from Angola to Zimbabwe as armies fought over diamonds, coltan and timber. Today, a similar dynamic is emerging:

Proxy Warfare:Rwanda and Uganda vie for influence through terrorist proxies, while the DRC courts Wagner mercenaries and SADC troops. However, Wagner mercenaries are already working with the Ugandan regime, offering both military training and cooperation, and many SADC regimes have a cosy relationship with Rwanda and Uganda.
Resource Scramble: Global demand for cobalt and coltan has turned eastern DRC into a battleground for mining contracts. Chinese companies, Arab oligarchs, Western capitalist hyenas, Rwandan and Ugandan puppets and Western tech giants are all jostling for control.

“This isn’t just about territory — it’s about who benefits from Congo’s wealth,” warns a UN investigator.

International Warnings: From Rhetoric to Reality

Russia’s Caution: Citing the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, Russia’s envoy warned of “another brutal war with colossal casualties” if regional actors escalate. Moscow, however, faces accusations of hypocrisy over the Wagner Group’s ties to the Congolese military elite.
The UK’s Ultimatum: The UK threatened ‘further action’, presumably referring to its 2023 sanctions against Rwandan officials, if resolution 2773 was ignored. However, the UK is known for paying lip service when it knows which side of the bread has the butter.
The U.S. Dilemma: Torn between supporting Rwanda (a counter-terrorism ally) and condemning the M23 terrorists, the US has opted for targeted sanctions — a half-measure that critics say is “too little, too late”.

Humanitarian Catastrophe: The Human Cost of Escalation

A full-scale regional war would compound the existing horrors:

Displacement: Already 6.9 million Congolese have been displaced, and spillover from the conflict could uproot millions more in Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi.
Famine: The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that 23.4 million people face acute hunger, and disrupted supply chains could lead to starvation in refugee camps.
Disease: Cholera, measles and Ebola — contained in 2023 — could resurface amid collapsed health systems.

Preventing the Unthinkable: Diplomatic Lifelines

AU Rapid Response: The African Union is proposing a 5,000-strong rapid reaction force, but funding delays and political wrangling are stalling progress.
SADC Reinforcements: Southern African troops (from Malawi, Tanzania, South Africa) are reinforcing the DRC army, but their numbers (3,000) pale in comparison to the M23’s 15,000 terrorists.
Global Pressure: The EU and US must use trade agreements (e.g. Rwanda’s AGOA status) to enforce compliance with Resolution 2773.

A Final Warning

As the DRC’s ambassador to the UN implored: “If the world stands by, Congo will burn – and the flames will spread”. The question is no longer if a regional war will break out, but when. Will the international community act decisively, or repeat the fatal inertia of the 1990s?

Conclusion: A Crossroads for Congo and the World

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2773 (2025) marks a pivotal moment in the decades-long struggle for peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). But as history has shown — from the failures of MONUC in the 2000s to the collapsed ceasefires of the Luanda and Nairobi processes – resolutions alone cannot silence guns or heal wounds. The DRC now stands at a crossroads where the choices made by global powers, regional actors and ordinary citizens will determine whether the country descends into regional war or ascends to lasting stability.

The Three Pillars of Progress

Pressure on Rwanda: A Test of Global Resolve
The resolution’s demand that Rwanda end its support for M23 terrorists and withdraw its troops from Congolese soil is a diplomatic milestone. But without concrete action — such as expanded sanctions, suspension of trade privileges or multilateral arms embargoes — the demand risks becoming another empty gesture. The US and EU, Rwanda’s biggest donors and trading partners, must use their influence. Will they prioritise regional stability over geopolitical convenience, or repeat the mistakes of the 1990s when inaction fuelled Congolese genocide?
MONUSCO’s Evolution: From Peacekeeping to Peacemaking
MONUSCO’s future depends on its ability to adapt. The mission must shift from static base protection to proactive civil defence, using real-time drone surveillance and rapid reaction forces. Equally important is addressing Congolese disillusionment: working with local leaders to rebuild trust, and phasing out operations only when credible regional forces are ready. If MONUSCO withdraws prematurely, as the DRC government demands, who will protect Kivu’s 12 million people from occupation by M23 terrorists?
Ethical Consumption: Breaking the Resource Curse
The world’s insatiable appetite for cobalt, coltan and gold sustains Congo’s conflict economy. While tech giants like Apple and Tesla tout ‘green’ initiatives, their supply chains remain tainted with blood minerals. Consumers hold untapped power: demanding blockchain-verified sourcing, supporting certifications like Fair Congo, and pressuring lawmakers to enforce stricter due diligence laws. As Congolese activist Julienne Lusenge implores, “Every electric car battery and smartphone should bear witness to our suffering — or our hope.”

The Cost of Complacency

If the international community falters, the consequences will ripple far beyond Central Africa:

Regional War: Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi could spiral into direct conflict, destabilising trade routes and triggering mass refugee crises.
Global Markets: Cobalt shortages could derail the green energy transition and drive up the cost of electric vehicles and renewables.
Moral Bankruptcy: A generation raised on ‘never again’ slogans will witness another avoidable disaster.

Call to Action: From Awareness to Accountability

The DRC’s fate is not sealed — but time is running out. Here’s what you can do:

Advocate: Urge legislators to sanction violators of UN resolutions and support legislation such as the EU Critical Commodities Act.
Amplify: Share stories of Congolese resilience and genocide on social media The resilience of the Congolese people is truly inspiring as they continue to face the challenges of conflict and violence. From the harrowing stories of women, men, and children who have endured displacement, to the powerful voices of activists.
Invest: Supporting NGOs working in eastern DRC. There are several NGOs working in eastern DRC, providing vital support in a range of areas including humanitarian aid, education, health, and community development.
Stop the Genocide in Congo: Consume wisely by choosing tech brands committed to audited supply chains, such as Fairphone or Apple’s Verified Tin Sourcing. By supporting companies that prioritise ethical sourcing and transparency, you can help reduce the demand for conflict minerals and promote responsible practices. Together, we can have a significant impact on the lives of those affected by violence and exploitation in the DRC. Let’s create a better future through our conscious consumer choices.

closing remark:

The DRC’s minerals power our phones, cars, and climate goals. But as M23 terrorists tighten their grip and children starve in displacement camps, we must ask: will the world continue to profit from Congo’s pain, or finally invest in its people? The resilience and suffering of the Congolese people should inspire us to make conscious choices and advocate for responsible practices. The answer will define not only Congo’s future — but our collective humanity. By standing in solidarity with the Congolese people and demanding ethical practices, we can help pave the way for a future in which their rich resources contribute to prosperity and peace, rather than conflict and suffering.

Together, we have the power to change the narrative. Let’s ensure that the Democratic Republic of Congo’s rich resources bring prosperity and peace, not conflict and suffering. It is time for us to act to ensure that the pain and hardship faced by the Congolese people is transformed into a beacon of hope and renewal for generations to come. Our collective humanity depends on the choices we make today.

Joram Jojo