The European Union recently imposed sanctions on Rwanda’s military, its mining board, and the leader of the M23 rebel movement. These measures come amidst regional efforts led by the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to address the ongoing conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the M23 rebel group.

The EU’s intervention, heavily influenced by Belgium, risks undermining African-led initiatives aimed at achieving a negotiated resolution.

ALSO READ: Brussels&039; posture against Rwanda is 'profoundly irresponsible', says ex-Belgian senator

This development follows concerted efforts by African organisations, including the African Union (AU), to advocate for dialogue as the only viable path to restoring peace in DR Congo.

Both the EAC and SADC have emphasised that a military approach will not yield lasting solutions and have urged President Félix Tshisekedi to engage in negotiations.

However, Tshisekedi’s refusal to heed these calls and his pivot towards Western support—marked by outreach to the EU and even the United States—has raised questions about his commitment to African unity and self-determination.

The crisis in the DR Congo has escalated significantly, with the M23 capturing key territories, including Goma and Bukavu. Despite the Congolese army’s alliances with militias like the FDLR and other groups collectively referred to as the Wazalendo, they have been unable to halt the rebels' advance.

Regional leaders have repeatedly stressed the need for dialogue, especially in the face of mounting humanitarian crises and instability in eastern Congo.

ALSO READ: A historical timeline of Belgium's divisive politics in Rwanda

Yet Tshisekedi has distanced himself from these regional frameworks, choosing instead to sideline the AU, EAC, and SADC in favor of Western-led initiatives. This approach has included attempts to secure U.S. military assistance in exchange for access to the DRC’s vast mineral wealth.

This divergence highlights the stark contrast between African aspirations for "African solutions to African problems" and the EU’s tendency to transform these efforts into "European problems to African solutions."

Belgium’s historical role

Belgium’s involvement in this crisis is rooted in its colonial history, during which it wielded influence over the DR Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. This legacy continues to shape its approach to Central Africa, where it remains an influential player in the political and economic narratives.

Belgian politicians, under domestic pressure from a sizable Congolese diaspora, have been instrumental in driving the EU’s recent sanctions.

ALSO READ: Former Belgian senator tours Goma, challenges Western version of events

However, Belgium’s role in the region’s post-colonial challenges cannot be overlooked. From the socio-political structures that fueled ethnic tensions in Rwanda and Burundi to the exploitative practices in the DR Congo, Belgium’s colonial policies laid the groundwork for many of the conflicts that persist today.

The genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 and the subsequent instability in eastern Congo can, in part, be traced back to Belgian influence.

President Tshisekedi’s personal ties to Belgium further complicate the picture. Born to Congolese parents but raised in Belgium, Tshisekedi’s political orientation reflects a deep alignment with Western approaches.

His willingness to bypass African solutions in favor of European and American interventions underscores a comprador mentality that many critics argue betrays the interests of the continent.

ALSO READ: Rwanda tells Belgium not ready ‘to surrender sovereignty, dignity for crumbs of economic aid’

Tshisekedi’s rejection of African-led initiatives and his reliance on Western support are likely to worsen the situation in the DR Congo. The sanctions championed by Belgium and the EU risk alienating Rwanda, a key player in the region whose cooperation is essential for lasting peace.

The failure to address the root causes of the conflict—such as the presence of genocidaires and other militias in eastern Congo—will only prolong the suffering of the Congolese people.

Belgium, too, risks backlash from its involvement. While its political class seeks to shape the narrative on Central Africa, it has yet to confront its own colonial legacy. The enduring resentment in Rwanda over Belgium’s role in the events leading up to the 1994 genocide and its subsequent support for genocidal forces in the DR Congo remains a sensitive issue.

Belgium’s actions, both historical and contemporary, have never been fully scrutinized or held to account in either Belgian or African public discourse.

As the crisis deepens, the prospects for a peaceful resolution appear increasingly distant. The DR Congo’s immense mineral wealth and strategic importance continue to attract external interests, complicating efforts for an African-led solution.

Tshisekedi’s alignment with Western powers risks isolating him from regional allies and undermining the legitimacy of his government in the eyes of his people and neighboring countries.

For Belgium, the consequences of its actions may extend beyond the current crisis. The country’s role in the Great Lakes region’s history and its continued involvement in shaping regional politics demand greater scrutiny.

Acknowledging and addressing this legacy is essential not only for fostering trust but also for contributing to a genuine resolution of the conflicts that plague the region.

In conclusion, the DR Congo crisis underscores the need for African solutions to African problems. By dismissing the regional organizations and embracing European-led interventions, Tshisekedi exemplifies the challenges Africa faces in asserting its sovereignty over its issues.

Meanwhile, Europe’s tendency to complicate or overshadow African initiatives highlights a persistent imbalance in global relations: where Africans seek ownership of their future, Europeans often reframe the agenda.

Without a change in approach, the people of the DR Congo will continue to bear the brunt of a conflict fueled by historical injustices, regional tensions, and external interference.