The tragic episode which is currently continuing between Russia and Ukraine sufficiently proves that, when strategic interests are prioritized by a superpower or any other State which believes it has the means to achieve its ambitions, the sovereignty of a Territory can be violated in the same way as the principle of sovereign equality of all members of the international community.
It is therefore not always a drop of water too many, and even less an unexpected attack which requires an immediate response which will either close the debates, or announce the start of a war which will last longer than expected. You can in fact be peacefully at home or in your Territory, and then one day, your sovereignty is violated for reasons that you know, but that the opposing camp considers to be better able to explain and justify than you.
In a world in perpetual turbulence where interests justify geostrategic alliances in a context of war or not, the quest, claim and defence of these very often disproportionate interests is always at the basis of everything. Just as they were at the basis of the first two global shames, they are also, like everywhere else, at the basis of the abuses which are currently continuing in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) after the carnage of 1994 which resulted in losses of human life amounting to several hundred thousand. Indeed, in the Territory of a neighbour in the Great Lakes region, an ethnic majority in terms of numbers, chose to take up arms in order to destroy, for purely tribal reasons, an ethnic minority with which it did not want to cohabit. Against all certainties based on the certainty of victory of the greatest number, the minority managed to gain the upper hand over a majority, some of whose supporters, as in all urgent situations, made the choice to take refuge outside the borders of their Territory, while leading to the extension of a war which was far from over.
Zaire which later became again the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997, became the site of hostility initiated by a neighbour who believes he has not violated anyone's sovereignty. The choice to dismiss the Mobutu regime through a Congolese ally opposed to this regime had become a priority which also aimed to protect the Tutsi minority in the East of the DRC.
Mobutu, who took power in 1965, was deposed in 1997, after 32 years of rule by Rwandan forces, supported by Congolese ethnic armed groups on the one hand, and Uganda on the other. A happy outcome for the allies which is at the base of the 1998-2003 episode characterized by the capture of Eastern Congo by the Congolese-Tutsis, supported by Rwanda which claims this territory as its own, and where the Congolese authorities would have the ambition of favouring a new season of the macabre episode which took place between April and July 1994. The bad turn of events forced Uganda to withdraw and rebel against Rwanda. While the rebels fought against the Congolese government forces, Rwanda and Uganda clashed on the coast of Kisangani (North East of the DRC). Clashes continued between 1998 and June 2003, as did diplomatic meetings initiated by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Gaddafi's Libya, and the United Nations (UN).
After the death of Laurent Désiré Kabila and the coronation of his son in his place, namely Joseph Kabila, the Congolese, Rwandan and Ugandan leaders chose unanimously with United Nations mediation, the path of dialogue or diplomacy, to put an end to this war.
The Luanda agreement of September 6, 2002 allowed the withdrawal of Rwandan and Ugandan troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo despite isolated attacks which, however, did not prevent the end of the war in June 2003, despite the fact that the armed conflict resurfaced between 2004 and 2009, and between 2012 and 2013. Indeed, the M23, who is a rebel group created on May 6, 2012 by former officers of the Congolese army, is since December 2023, a member of the Congo River Alliance or Association (AFC), "a political-military coalition of rebel groups and political parties" led by Corneille Nangaa, the former president of the Independent National Electoral Commission of the Democratic Republic of Congo (2015-2021). Let us specify that, the M23 rebellion or mutiny, is an armed insurrection initiated between April 2012 and November 2013 in the province of North Kivu, in the East of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This rebellion followed a first led by Laurent Nkunda and his group of rebels called the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) from 2004 to 2009. In April 2012, former members of the CNDP, integrated into the regular army, mutinied against the Congolese government, accusing Kinshasa of not having respected the Nairobi peace agreements of March 23, 2009, which aimed to preserve a lasting peace and sincere reconciliation through several articles which specify that the CNDP puts an end to its choice of being a political-military movement, integrates its elements into the police and army units, turns into a political party, and makes, among other things, the choice to seek results only through democratic means. Furthermore, in Article 2, the government undertakes to release political prisoners and to respect the strict independence of the judiciary.
But later, and particularly in 2012, the feeling of marginalization of the Tutsi minority would have justified a new escalation of the conflict in the North Kivu region; reason why CNDP supporters formed a group called the March 23 Movement of Nairobi in reference to the agreements of the same date in 2009. This Tutsi minority will take control of Goma, before being beaten by government troops and soldiers of the United Nations peacekeeping force (MONUSCO), and taking refuge for some in Rwanda and in Uganda for others. At the end of 2013, a decree was signed to amnesty former M23 rebels. The movement, however, is experiencing a resurgence from 2021, the year of the continuation of a bloody war which will continue to claim thousands of victims.
The Democratic Republic of Congo wants to preserve its sovereignty, Rwanda wants to impose its authority, Burundi wants to prevent an extension of the war on its Territory, the countries of Southern and Eastern Africa are calling for an immediate ceasefire, and the international community through the Secretary General of the United Nations request to "silencing the guns" and favouring, as in the past, diplomatic and even democratic means because this war, it must be said, has never produced anything good. Indeed, between victims and pillaging of natural resources indirectly supported by foreign powers having chosen to allow blood minerals to circulate, this war continues to establish a deleterious environment which does not favour its peaceful resolution, and even less a good business climate; hence the parties taken motivated above all by a desire to continue to legally exploit the natural resources of the territory, or to continue to calmly do business with the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We wonder if it is by dint of using a path that has produced nothing good that we will really succeed in restoring peace, or in really obtaining what we desire. One of the outcomes of the March 23, 2009 agreements was the conversion of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) into a political party which will only use legal and democratic channels to obtain justice.
A wise option that has certainly been undermined by evidence of poor governance that has generated discontent, but which should not be dismissed in favor of favoring and propagating a climate of insecurity which to date in April 2025, has caused millions of losses of human lives. People are paying the price for the consequences of a war they didn't want, and that they still don't want. The UN Security Council and the African Union in particular have a lot to do in a century where some States, through their actions, demonstrate that State sovereignty is not absolute and no longer has any reason to be taken into account when their interests are threatened. Hence the use of force and the balance of power which have definitively imposed themselves as means of pressure and deterrence in international relations. It remains to be hoped that diplomatic efforts, and democratics voices take the upper hand, and that the Congolese and others who have built a future for themselves in the East of the DRC can return and calmly continue their existence which promises to be full of challenges that cannot be achieved without the true return of a satisfactory peace for the Congolese, the SDEC and EAC countries, and all the other Territories which still hope for lasting peace not only in this part of the DRC, but in the whole Territory.
English|French
