The winding path of international politics has reached a fork of values: enduring liberalism versus an emergent imperialism. Our new path will be chosen in Central Africa, a war-ridden and oft-ignored part of the world, where the Democratic Republic of the Congo is facing a resurgence of violence inflicted by its neighbor Rwanda. In 2012, a similar conflict was resolved by strong international action. If the international community is willing to take the same steps it did before—something it is demonstrably capable of doing—then the fighting today would be quickly quashed. But that won’t happen. The norms that once regulated conflict and illegal invasion have been irrevocably eroded.
Current and Historical Conflicts
Earlier this year, the rebel group Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) seized two important cities in Eastern Congo. This abrupt violence is a bloody continuation of years of fighting between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its smaller neighbor Rwanda. M23 is funded by Rwanda, although Kigali denies the charge.
In 1994, Tutsi and Hutu refugees fled Rwanda during and after the genocide of the Tutsi by the Hutu. Social divisions rooted in Belgian occupation had fractured society, and, in 1994, the deaths of the Rwandan and Burundi presidents would set off 100 days of massacre. During the ensuing refugee crisis, many Hutu and Tutsi fled to the DRC, including known génocidaires. Thirty years later, the Rwandan government continues to accuse the DRC of harboring criminals, claiming this crime constitutes a large enough security threat to intervene militarily.
Most of the international community believes Rwanda is now funding M23. The militia, founded in 2012 and named for a peace treaty signed March 23, 2009, is a paramilitary force of Tutsi claiming to be both Congolese and unaffiliated with Rwanda. In a recent interview with CNN, Rwandan President Paul Kagame said he doesn’t know if there are Rwandan troops in the DRC, and M23 spokesman Victor Tesongo attested that the militia “receives no support from Rwanda.” These claims are disproved by both a history of Rwandan support and eyewitness testimony.
Stolen Wealth and the Funding of M23
The Eastern DRC boasts incredible mineral wealth, but the average citizen rarely benefits from it. Instead, decades of warfare and Rwandan exploitation have devastated the economy. M23, though claiming to fight for Tutsi safety and regional stability, seems to be largely motivated by greed for these resources. In May of last year, M23 seized the town Rubaya, located in a region known for its coltan mines. Coltan (used in making mobile phones) and other ores constituted roughly 75 percent of Rwanda’s exports as of 2023, despite very little of these minerals coming from within Rwanda. Instead, Congolese resources are forcibly extracted and smuggled across the border to Rwanda, where they’re sent to China, the United States, and the European Union.
This exploitation is widely known. The EU signed a minerals deal with Rwanda in February of 2024. Thierry Breton, Commissioner for the International Market of the EU, said “transparency, traceability and investment” were at the heart of the deal. President Felix Tshisekedi of the DRC strongly disagreed, telling reporters the deal was a “provocation in very bad taste” and alleging that Rwanda was exporting minerals that belonged to the Congo. Additionally, he warned Brussels that the deal would only exacerbate the conflict. Tshisekedi went largely ignored, and the Commission continues to trade with Rwanda. Only now that violence has resurged has some slight action been taken: members of the European Parliament called for a suspension of the deal. But calling for action is not the same as actually acting.
In dealing peacefully with Rwanda, the EU has effectively signed off on exploitation and conflict. Brussels would rather beat China in the “clean” energy race than make good on promises to support the DRC. Until a suspension is enacted and sanctions are placed on Rwanda, the people of the Congo will continue to be abused and subjugated for minerals they rightly own.
Donor Darling of the West
Rwanda was considered a “donor darling” of the West for its incredible economic recovery after the genocide in the 1990s. Questions have been raised about the sustainability of their economic model—particularly the mineral smuggling from the DRC—and Kigali’s repressive political tactics, but the West seems willing to tolerate these actions.
In return, Rwanda is the perfect picture of neoliberal excellence. They contribute the second most troops to UN peacekeeping and accept asylum seekers that Britain claims it can’t handle. Rwanda also has cultural cachet. Kigali generated more than 91 million USD from conferences and meetings in 2023 and is working to expand the tourism sector. The government is even working with sports leagues, including Formula 1 racing and the Basketball Africa League, an organization co-led by the National Basketball League in America.
Rwanda has far more soft power and cultural influence than the DRC, despite its smaller size and lack of resources. Despite this, and despite American guilt for its inaction during the Rwandan genocide, the international community suppressed Rwanda and M23 quickly and with great force after they invaded the DRC in 2012. Yet now, thirteen years later, no international action has been taken, beyond slight reproof from the UN. The lack of response is in part due to Rwanda’s increased influence, but Kigali had similar status—and was under less scrutiny—in 2012. The West’s inaction, then, is not due to evolving politics in Rwanda nor to a shift in the DRC; it’s reflective of a greater change in international norms regarding state sovereignty.
The 2012 Invasion
M23 has invaded East Congo before. After mutinying from the Congolese National Army, they quickly rose to prominence by invading Goma. M23 held the city from summer 2012 until mid 2013, committing egregious human rights violations.
The most notable difference between then and now is that the international community actively intervened in the conflict. President Barack Obama openly criticized Rwanda, and even called President Kagame to urge him to stop supporting M23. This public critique was bolstered by the US cutting military aid to Rwanda and encouraging the EU to do the same. The European Union was Rwanda’s largest donor at the time. Roughly 40% of Rwanda’s budget came directly from EU aid. Thus, when countries in the EU partially froze monetary support, it had immediate and public impact. Finally, in March 2013, the United Nations authorized the first ever offensive combat force to end the conflict.
The concerted action of the US, EU, and UN prevented M23 and Rwanda from destabilizing the Eastern DRC in 2013. Now, twelve years later, collective action is a far-fetched dream. The perceived difference between then and now is enormous, but whatever change occurred was not isolated to Central Africa—for better or for worse, the international community itself has evolved.
From Liberalism to Imperialism
From the end of World War II to the mid 2010s, analysts such as G. John Ikenberry described the international system as a “liberal world order.” Post-war, this meant the United States acting as a global hegemon over the interconnected and institutional world stage. As the balance of power shifted during and after the Cold War, the phrase took on a new dimension of being “rules-based.” The new term, vague and often misused, refers to the idea that states all operate under shared norms and rules, all of which are enforced or created by international institutions. In such an order, it’s extremely important that all countries who agree to the rules abide by them. If a country breaks a codified international norm, like Rwanda did when it invaded the DRC in 2012, then the international community must react. A rule that can be broken without consequence is not a real rule.
Beginning with Vladimir Putin’s victory in 2012, then Xi Jinping’s in 2013, and Narendra Modi and Recep Tayyip Erdogan‘s victories in 2014, the world saw a new rise in nationalist, authoritarian leaders. This could have been a classic swing of the political pendulum back towards conservative values. However, those values became further entrenched when Donald Trump was elected in 2016. The illiberal governments of Moscow and Beijing were no longer the outliers but were now the views espoused by the “leader of the free world.” Later, when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, he set a precedent. He told the international community that if Russia has the ability to take territory—regardless of Ukraine’s legitimate rule—then it also has the right to take territory. Rwanda’s illegal invasion of the DRC is the natural response. Kigali had the financial and military might needed to take Goma, thus it had the right to take Goma.
The Point of No Return
Rwanda’s illegal invasion of the DRC is what future historians will regard as the point of no return. The international community paid attention to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and reacted militarily. But as Trump continually praises strongmen and pressures Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to make deals with Russia, norms have been chipped away. The international community, with the U.S. no longer at its helm, has turned away from the liberal values that drove the shut down of M23 in 2013. There are many similarities between now and then: Rwanda was a “donor darling,” the DRC was embroiled in conflict, and M23 sought mineral wealth by invading the city of Goma. These similarities only make the differences starker. It’s clear now that the ability to successfully invade is all the justification an aggressor needs. The old liberal values of cooperation have deteriorated; their last vestiges eroded barely a month ago in Central Africa, and the West didn’t even notice. Rwanda may be the first of many new imperialists.
Featured Image Source: New York Times
Comments are closed.