Toasting to war over peace? Burundi President Ndayishimiye and DR Congo counterpart Tshisekedi at a previous meeting. It has to be hoped that both leaders will see the benefits of peace over war
In an increasingly interconnected world, where dialogue is the cornerstone of resolving conflicts, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) stands as a cautionary tale of failed leadership, political miscalculation, and the deliberate perpetuation of war. President Félix Tshisekedi and his administration have chosen the path of confrontation over negotiation, and their rejection of mediation offers exposes a leadership devoid of vision, empathy, and a genuine commitment to ending the suffering of its people.
The latest chapter in this tragedy unfolded on January 23, when Rwandan President Paul Kagame visited Türkiye and suggested that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan mediate the ongoing conflict between Rwanda and the DRC. Erdoğan, known for his pragmatic diplomacy, was receptive to the idea. However, Kinshasa, in its characteristic arrogance, rejected the offer, summoning Türkiye’s ambassador for a stern rebuke. The DRC deputy foreign minister, Gracia Yamba Kazadi, stated that Congo does not need “any other mediator” beyond Angola and reiterated the clichéd mantra of “African solutions to African problems.”
This reaction is emblematic of Kinshasa’s disdain for meaningful progress. Angola, whose President João Lourenço has been appointed by the African Union as the official mediator, has repeatedly called for direct talks between the Congolese government and the M23 rebel group. Yet, Tshisekedi has consistently refused these overtures. The result? An escalating war that has displaced over six million Congolese, created dire humanitarian crises in IDP camps, and left Goma—a major city in eastern Congo—on the brink of total isolation. With all exit routes cut off except through Rwanda’s Rubavu, Goma now depends on daily supplies from a country that Kinshasa accuses of aggression.
These dozens of trucks are in Rubavu, awaiting to cross to Goma. Every day, up to 200 trucks use this Rubavu-Goma entry point. Biggest percentage of what Goma needs is via Rwanda
A Manufactured Crisis for Political Gain
The refusal to engage in dialogue with M23 and other armed groups is not just a failure of diplomacy; it is a calculated political strategy. Tshisekedi’s government thrives on the chaos of conflict because it diverts attention from his domestic failures and consolidates his grip on power. With elections looming not long, Tshisekedi is rumored to be plotting changes to the DRC constitution to extend his rule. What better way to stoke nationalism and silence dissent than by perpetuating an “external threat” narrative against Rwanda?
This tactic, while politically expedient, is a moral and strategic disaster. Over 200 armed groups continue to wreak havoc across eastern Congo, with the Congolese army (FARDC) either complicit or woefully ineffective. The FDLR, a genocidal militia composed of remnants of those who orchestrated the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda, operates freely in Congo, often collaborating with FARDC forces. Rather than addressing this dangerous alliance, Kinshasa has doubled down on its rhetoric against Rwanda, a distraction that only exacerbates the suffering of ordinary Congolese.
Kinshasa’s Isolationist Folly
“Maji ya Rwanda” or Water from Rwanda, is what’s written on that 3-wheeled motorcycle. Every day, over 150,000 litres are ferried to Goma from Rubavu. Goma doesn’t have a fresh water source due to a combination of geological and physiological reasons.
Kinshasa’s rejection of external mediation, whether from Türkiye or any other party, is as shortsighted as it is destructive. By severing diplomatic ties with Rwanda and expelling Rwandan diplomats, Tshisekedi has closed yet another avenue for dialogue. This isolationist approach ignores the African Union’s repeated insistence that the only path to peace is through political engagement with what it terms the “politico-military opposition.” Even the United Nations, Western nations, and regional actors acknowledge that a military solution to Congo’s crisis is unattainable. Yet, Kinshasa clings to the illusion of total victory—a dangerous fantasy that prolongs the suffering of millions.
The African Union’s emphasis on dialogue is not a mere diplomatic nicety; it is a recognition of the complex realities on the ground. M23’s resurgence and territorial gains, confirmed by UN reports, are not anomalies; they are symptoms of deeper political and ethnic grievances that Kinshasa refuses to address. Angola’s mediation efforts, if given a chance, could provide a framework for addressing these grievances. But Tshisekedi’s government has shown time and again that it is more interested in grandstanding than in genuine solutions.
A Leadership Crisis Amid Humanitarian Catastrophe
The consequences of Kinshasa’s belligerence are dire. Over six million Congolese are displaced, living in squalid IDP camps with little hope for relief. Goma, a city of over two million people, faces an impending humanitarian disaster as supply routes are choked off. With North Kivu Governor Maj Gen Peter Cirimwami recently killed under mysterious circumstances, the region is descending further into chaos. Meanwhile, Kinshasa remains aloof, fixated on its political games.
At Petit Barriere, the smaller border on Rubavu-Goma post, tons of fresh foodstuffs cross daily from Rwanda’s family gardens. With all routes now controlled by M23 rebels, the lifeline for Goma is from this border.
President Tshisekedi’s abdication of responsibility is perhaps best exemplified by his indifference to the plight of his people. Instead of prioritizing humanitarian aid or rebuilding trust in eastern Congo, he has opted for inflammatory rhetoric and symbolic gestures, such as closing embassies. This is not the behavior of a leader committed to peace; it is the behavior of a leader who thrives on conflict.
The people of Congo deserve better. They deserve a government that prioritizes their welfare over political expediency, a leadership that seeks solutions rather than scapegoats. The international community, regional actors, and civil society must hold Kinshasa accountable for its failures. The African Union, in particular, must pressure Tshisekedi to return to the negotiating table and engage in good-faith dialogue with M23 and other armed groups.
President Kagame’s suggestion of Türkiye as a mediator was not a slight against Angola or African solutions; it was a recognition that peace requires all hands on deck. Rejecting such offers is not a sign of strength but of weakness—a refusal to confront uncomfortable truths about Congo’s internal failings.
Congo has chosen war, but war is not inevitable. The path to peace exists, but it requires courage, humility, and a willingness to prioritize the lives of ordinary Congolese over the ambitions of political elites. Until Kinshasa makes that choice, the suffering will continue, and history will judge Tshisekedi and his government for the tragedy they allowed to unfold.
