U.S. Foreign Policy: Missteps in The Congo and Rwanda Conflict

The U.S. and U.K. imposed sanctions on Rwanda amidst the Congo conflict, which critics argue is counterproductive and misaligned. The M23 insurgency, stemming from the Congolese government’s failures, is largely misunderstood. Secretary of State Rubio’s handling of the situation raises concerns, and comprehensive changes in Congo’s governance and international policy are necessary for peace.

In March 2025, the United States and the United Kingdom imposed sanctions on Rwanda’s defense minister and a spokesperson for the M23 insurgent group in Congo amidst escalating conflict. Critics argue that this action is not only counterproductive but also morally misguided, akin to blaming a victim for retaliating against abuse. The ongoing M23 insurgency stems from the Congolese government’s failure to honor past peace agreements and President Felix Tshisekedi’s decisions that inflame ethnic tensions and protect groups linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

The M23 group is fundamentally Congolese, albeit with ethnic ties to certain Rwandans. This insurgency draws on the diverse ethnic groups present in Congo’s North and South Kivu provinces. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s reliance on State Department officials, some of whom may lack ethical clarity, raises concerns over the handling of the conflict. Evidence suggests that Rwandan military forces discovered substantial weapon caches in Goma, indicative of preparations for a potential Congolese invasion of Rwanda.

Rubio’s position appears to conflate the roles of victim and aggressor, as he seems to side with Tshisekedi’s regime, which engages in violent actions against civilians, such as bombings in M23-controlled areas. The narrative surrounding Rwanda’s alleged looting is shaped by diplomats and UN officials unfamiliar with the local economy, where activities perceived as looting by the State Department are seen by locals as their commonplace business operations, benefiting from lower customs duties abroad.

If sanctions had the power to avert violence and dysfunction in Congo, millions of lives might have been saved. Instead, by supporting the corrupt Congolese regime and its powerful allies, Rubio leaves M23 with little choice but to resist as a matter of survival. The future peace process may require significant changes in Kinshasa, potentially resembling the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan. The U.N. must revise its peacekeeping efforts, and severe actions, such as classifying Burundi as a state sponsor of terrorism, must be considered to pave the way for stability in Africa’s Great Lakes region.

The recent U.S. sanctions on Rwanda for its involvement in the Congo conflict have been criticized as misguided and ineffective. They reflect a misunderstanding of the complex dynamics at play, highlighting the Congolese government’s failures and the need for a reevaluation of international support. To promote peace and stability in the region, comprehensive changes, including the potential for autonomy for parts of Congo, combined with a firmer stance against the corrupt regime, are essential.

Original Source: www.aei.org