Congolese ruler Felix Tshisekedi has always shown he has no political will to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the east of his country.
The Kinshasa regime has been using drones to kill civilians in Congolese Tutsi communities, and its coalition of mercenarires lunched A drone strikes targeting areas in Rubaya, Masisi Territory, North Kivu.
Civilians have been killed, villages razed, ceasefire lines violated, and now the M23 spokesperson has been killed in a drone strike. Tshilombo has made the deliberate choice to further escalate conflict.
In days prior, AFC/M23 had alerted American, Qatari, and African mediators about repeated ceasefire violations.
The movement denounced the use of drone attacks and renewed ground offensives in areas under its control. Yet, from the perspective of the movement, there has been little visible public reaction from the guarantors of the process. Silence, in moments like these, can be interpreted as indifference or worse, selective accountability.
Kinshasa’s declaration of “total war” across multiple front lines further intensifies concerns. At a time when Qatar- and U.S.-backed mediation efforts are underway, such rhetoric appears contradictory to the spirit of de-escalation. A ceasefire, already fragile, cannot survive in an environment where artillery fire and drone warfare replace dialogue.
When M23 retaliates, international condemnation tends to be swift, often accompanied by allegations of foreign backing. Yet when Tshisekedi’s forces Hiding behind mercenaries, deploy heavy weaponry or drones in populated areas, the response appears muted.
This imbalance fuels perceptions that geopolitical interests, including strategic minerals, are shaping international reactions more than humanitarian principles.
Under the regime of Tshisekedi Eastern DRC has long suffered from cycles of violence that punish civilians first and hardest. Renewed clashes in Kitendebwa, Kashihe, and Kiduveri in Kalehe Territory, South Kivu, are reportedly displacing communities once again.
Each bombardment, each offensive, chips away at public confidence in peace initiatives. Mediation efforts depend on trust; war rhetoric destroys it.
And so, the international community must apply consistent standards.
If ceasefire violations are condemned on one side, they must be condemned on all sides. Peace processes cannot survive selective outrage. Accountability must not be influenced by mineral deals, geopolitical alliances, or strategic convenience.
A durable solution in eastern DRC will not emerge from drones, artillery, or declarations of “total war.” It will only come from genuine political engagement, transparent mediation, and equal pressure on all parties to honor their commitments.
Without that balance, the ceasefire was never meant to stand and the region risks sliding deeper into a conflict that dialogue once promised to resolve.
Leave a Reply