I had the opportunity to peruse the minutes of a joint EAC-SADC ministerial meeting, co-chaired by Kenyan foreign affairs minister Musalia Mudavadi and his counterpart from Zimbabwe, Prof. Amon Murwira. This meeting took place in Dar-es-Salaam on 7 February 2025. As widely anticipated, it was a technical meeting that advised the presidential summit, which made the major decisions based on it.
Technically speaking, what was drawn out there was most likely adopted wholesale by the superior meeting. The major drawback of this meeting was a failure to involve over 100 fighting rebels that are inside the DRC and impose a ceasefire that works in favour of the Kinshasa regime that may still be ousted in less than two months from now. What was shocking was the admission that the meeting was clueless about the political problems that were confounding the DRC and her neighbours. This article will attempt to do what this meeting did not do: figure out a political solution for all Great Lakes nations.
As expected, the meeting drew up 9 points of short-term implementation, which were as vacuous as could possibly be. It is important I go through those 9 points, which should be regarded as action plans, before poking their glaring weaknesses. The first point is aimed at the immediate cessation of all hostilities and unconditional ceasefire that should be respected by all parties: states and non-states. The EAC-SADC peacekeepers will monitor the ceasefire. The second point was the reopening of Goma airport and all routes leading to it for the purposes of restoration of humanitarian services.
The third point was the development of securitization of Goma and surrounding areas. The fourth point was the immediate return of the deceased and the injured. The fifth point was implementing confidence-building between warring parties to address the conflict in Eastern DRC. The sixth point was the neutralisation of the FDLR, coupled with Rwandan forces returning to their domicile country and continuing with interactive dialogue with M-23. All this will be achieved through the Nairobi and Luanda processes.
The seventh point was the commitment to respecting the sanctity of the territorial integrity of the DRC and its neighbouring countries. Point eight was facilitating humanitarian services deliveries and relief services providers. The ninth point was to discourage inflammatory rhetoric and other forms of rhetoric that can cause cleavage in communities.
The meeting drew up three medium-term implementation points. The first was to search for political solutions to the underlying causes through political dialogue. The second was to develop modalities for withdrawing foreign armed forces from the DRC. The third was to establish a joint EAC-SADC security technical team to coordinate the implementation of the joint team’s decisions.
In the long term, it was to develop an elaborate roadmap that will detail short, medium and long-term implementation measures, including modalities of financing to be developed by
The SADC-EAC political and security technical team is to be presented to the joint team within 30 days for consideration and approval.
When I read through this summary of minutes, I knew the inherent limitations of our leaders’ current crop had been exhausted. What we are being told is that our leaders do not know where the problems are and need to take us through this exhaustive rollercoaster to unearth the real issues! Well, the truth ought to come out right now; we know the problems and the solutions. Therefore, we really do not need anybody to take us for a sucker.
The elephant in the room is the lack of democracy in all Great Lakes countries. It is understandable why the rulers of the day, who are the chief beneficiaries of stolen democracy, will go around the bush, escaping political accountability. It may also help to understand why having a frozen conflict suits their purposes of being accredited to solving a problem that keeps getting worse and worse.
In order to appreciate the issue of the dearth of democracy in the Great Lake regions, we need to pay attention to what the former Rwanda Chief of Staff General Kayumba Adewayo Nyamwasa (1998-2002) said to the anchor of South African television. He said the issue of Banyamulenge is behind M23 was a misconception of the fundamental issues at play. The issue of Banyamulenge was resolved between 1998 and 2000 when Banyamulenge were given topmost positions in the DRC government. One was appointed vice president, another speaker of the House, with others getting cabinet ministerial positions. The DRC government assimilated the Banyamulenge not only as citizens but also in top decision-making positions.
He went on to say that M23 is not about the citizenship of Banyamulenge or accommodation in the Kinshasa government but power and natural resources sharing between the central rulers in Kinshasa and the provincial entities. At the moment, Kinshasa is legally reaping everything from the Eastern DRC without reinvesting there. It is regional development disparities that are fueling the conflict. He also added that more than 100 rebel groups in the Eastern DRC are angling for different things. He said the so-called FDLR that the Kagame regime in Kigali is determined to eliminate has its own legitimate complaints against the RPF.
During his watch, General Kayumba claimed he was instrumental in the reintegration of the former soldiers of the FDLR into the Rwandan army. Today, the Rwandan army has many FDLR soldiers due to his personal efforts. Most of those 100 groups are carrying arms to protest, being excluded in the political process in their own countries. He cited most of those rebel groups that originated in Rwanda and Burundi, with the sister nations arming contrarian rebels to destabilize each other. He divulged a war between Rwanda and Burundi has been fomenting for some time now because of undermining each other through proxies.
General Kayumba revealed he fled Rwanda because President Kagame wanted to assassinate him, and there have been many attempts on his life coordinated from Kigali. At the same time, he is a refugee in South Africa. He said many of the Rwanda refugees have been killed outside Rwanda. It is the denial of their legitimate citizenship rights that contributes to the instability now seen in the Eastern DRC and the rest of neighbouring countries. He questioned how President Kagame won the elections with 99.92%. Are there elections in Rwanda?
He cited similar examples of lack of democracy in Burundi and Uganda, flaming the inferno in the Great Lake regions. He claimed the Arusha UN International Court has ever indicted no member of the FDLR rebel group. He reiterated the FDLR is not an offshoot of Interahamwe, the masterminds of the 1994 Rwanda genocides. It is a different military outfit with different visions and demands against the Kagame government. FDLR’s ultimate goal is to be included in the political process of Rwanda. The question now is whether Kagame and the RPF can win clean elections. Kagame, hailing from the minority Tutsi, will he be able to prevail against the majority Hutu whom the FDLR claim to represent? These are some of the dilemmas to peaceful resolution of the Great Lake countries’ history of political violence.
He confirmed our worst fears that Rwanda business people were behind the looting of natural resources in the DRC with the help of the EU. He asked how come the EU has verified, certified and entered into mineral agreements with Rwanda that are sourced from the Eastern DRC? Rwanda does not have coltan but exports 150 tons of it every month to the EU! The EU, too, is complicit in crimes against humanity committed in the Eastern DRC. Greed for natural resources is pushing the EU to pay a blind eye to the role Rwanda is playing in arming, training and taking part in looting, maiming and murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the Eastern DRC.
Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda insist they have legitimate reasons to pursue their enemies in the Eastern DRC but are unwilling to carry out meaningful democratic reforms that will end the animosities and never-ending wars. History shows all these four governments, namely the DRC, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, came to power through military means and, no wonder, despise democracy and only invoke it in a manner that will guarantee them to stay in power. Those fighting to remove their governments are doing so under the pretext of restoring democracy that will ensure their involvement in determining the destiny of their own countries. The problem of the history of military solutions tends to negate democracy save for Ghanaian & Nigerian experimental experiences under Generals Jerry Rawlings and Olesegun Obasanjo, respectively.
What was decided in the joint meeting of EAC-SADC was to circumvent the real issues partly because most countries in this cocoon do not run clean elections. Therefore, it is difficult to propose measures that will threaten their own positions in their own governments. If you look at Kenya and South Africa, which pass the test of conducting fair elections, they still face legitimacy issues. In Kenya, there is a spike of political killings that go unabated. In South Africa, political killings are not recorded, but social tensions have been increasing, manifesting as crimes.
The rest of the members of this group do not carry elections that meet international standards. It is not easy to propose democratic reforms in DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda when you are not living as an example. Without democratic reforms, the Great Lake regions will continue to be a little Gaza in the midst of Africa. All the steps recommended through this meeting have not gone far enough to arrest these countries’ political problems. What is happening in one of those countries tends to spill over into neighbouring countries. Unless we craft a political solution that runs across all great regions, we stand no chance of addressing the political problems bedevilling the region.
It was a surprise that decisions were being made that affected M23 and other groups without inviting them to a negotiating table! Why should the rebels respect whatever was agreed by countries that have little to do with their problems or harbour conflicts of interest? Why should M23 cease hostilities when it has the momentum to go all the way to Kinshasa and get rid of the Tshisekedi government and install their own? From what we have seen, the SADC-EAC peacekeepers are outnumbered and outgunned by the M23, and some of the peacekeepers have already been arrested by the M23. How can M23 listen to the peacekeepers whom they have already maimed, killed and subdued? There is a psychological inferiority barrier facing the peacekeepers to do anything useful. The best the meeting could have done was to bring their people home and contain the damage already inflicted.
Even if M23 succeeds in ousting the Tshisekedi regime in Kinshasa, I don’t see the end of hostilities because the new rulers coming to power through the barrel of a gun will not honour democratic reforms just like their predecessors. They will hang there for a couple of years until another rebel surfaces, and they get rid of them by deploying similar violent means. It is a vicious cycle of violence that only genuine democracy can halt once and for all.
The rebels will never accept the recommendation to disband the FDRL since it annuls her legitimate demands for democratic reforms in Rwanda. The recommendation works to satisfy the parochial interests of Kagame and his cronies but not Rwanda or the Great Lake regions. In many ways, the meeting had sanctioned dictatorial rule in Rwanda. Unless legitimate grievances of the FDLR are addressed, we should not expect peace in the near future in the Great Lake region.
Since these meetings aim not to solve the real problems but to deceive the whole world into thinking they are doing something about them, we should stop taking them seriously. If Tanzania, for example, cares about what happens in the DRC, it ought to lead by example: ensure her own elections are above reproach and respect human rights.
Preaching peace while waving a sword will never inspire anybody, let alone your neighbour in the DRC. Leadership is always about leading by example, not the other way around.
Read more articles by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
