Why did the UN Security Council ignore to condemn the existential threat against Congolese Tutsi?

The recent unanimous adoption of resolution 2772 (2025) by the UN Security Council (UNSC), on the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), raises more questions than answers. The resolution ignored to focus on dealing with the root causes of the conflict, especially the existential threat posed by the Kinshasa government against Congolese Tutsi. The UNSC calls for M23 to, “immediately cease hostilities and withdraw from areas it controls, ’’ gives no explanation as to where they want M23 to go. These are Congolese, most of them with parents living as refugees in neighboring countries and beyond. However, when the DR Congo representative during the UNSC session called the presence of M23 in its controlled areas as an, “illegal occupation of DRC territory by the [Rwandan Defence Force] and their supporters,” it is clear that the DR Congo authorities do not recognize M23 as Congolese, but an invasion by Rwanda. The Council’s one sided resolution therefore, which calls for withdrawal of M23, supports Kinshasa’s assertion that M23 are foreign terrorists who invaded their country. This is a dangerous mistake by the UNSC that complicates rather than solving the eastern DRC crisis. When the UNSC downplays the threat of hate speech, killing and cannibalization of Congolese Tutsi and ignores to condemn the Kinshasa government that publicly supports their extermination, it indicates that the UNSC by omission or design is an accomplice in the extermination agenda of the Congolese Tutsi in DR Congo. In April, 2024, when the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Alice Wairimu Nderitu was in Rwanda for the 30th commemoration of genocide against the Tutsi, she warned that there are, “risk factors for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity” in eastern DR Congo. Sadly, the world has not learned from the past. The UNSC did not see any urgency to heed Nderitu’s warning, and there was no Security Council session or resolution to deal with the threat, which raises suspicion on functionality of the UN system. Instead, the UNSC and their UN Group of Experts wastes more time setting the narrative that the war in eastern DR Congo is about mineral resources. The “ever Again” pledged in 1945, has been turned into a meaningless slogan. Greed, conspiracy, lies and double standards have ruled the world at the expense of truth, and humanness. Contrary to UNSC condemnation of M23 as aggressors, the population in the rebel controlled areas received them with jubilation as liberators rather than “terrorist aggressors.” The population has been guaranteed security against by protecting them from the killing of FADRC and its coalition. If M23 withdraws from the controlled areas, it would be catastrophic because FARDC and its coalition will come back and wipe out the remaining Congolese Tutsi that the M23 is fighting to protect. The UN peacekeepers (MONUSCO) have been in the country for more than 30 years and have not been able to protect the Congolese Tutsi from being killed. The UNSC made a positive contribution by urging Kinshasa and Kigali to return to diplomatic talks, through the Luanda and Nairobi processes, which had already been agreed on when the leaders of East African Community (EAC) and South African Development Community (SADC) met in Dar-es Salaam on February, 8, 2025. For the UNSC to adopt a resolution on the eastern DR Congo crisis at a time African leaders who understand better what is going were in agreement on how to deal with the situation, it played out like a coup d'état against the African led initiative in finding a solution to the eastern DRC crisis. Although the M23 agreed to hold talks, Tshisekedi has repeatedly said that as long as he is still in power, he will never negotiate with M23. Who will force Tshisekedi to a negotiating table, when the UNSC does not call Tshisekedi to order, but heaps blame on Rwanda and M23? The narrative that the crisis in eastern DRC is about minerals is deceptive. Tom Burgis in his book, “The Looting Machine,” clearly documents the real plunderers of DR Congo minerals. It is the western countries that have messed up Congo, which makes them hold Tshisekedi like a pampered child who can do anything and goes away with it. In January, demonstrators supported by government officials, attacked several foreign embassies in Kinshasa, including France, Belgium, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda. These acts were in breach of International law which decrees that embassies are ‘inviolable, and Tsheisekedi was neither held accountable nor his ambassador abroad summoned. The incorporation of genocidal FDLR in the DR Congo national army and use of European mercenaries, both violations of international law, were not condemned by the UNSC. DR Congo shelled Rwandan territory killing innocent civilians, yet the UNSC did not condemn the aggression. The west does not want to hold DR Congo leadership accountable because they know where their bread is buttered. In the1940-1950s, the U.S was mining uranium at the Shinkolobwe mine in the Katanga province. The uranium used to make atomic bombs(“little boy”) that the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, was mined in Southern DR Congo at the Shinkolobwe mine. Today, mining companies in DR Congo are from western capitals. The DR Congo is the world's largest producer of cobalt, largely used in stability and performance of lithium-ion batteries, crucial for powering both EVs and mobile phones. These are not made in Rwanda, but in western countries. This is the reason why when you talk about Congo, western countries only hear about minerals, and the Congolese Tutsi who are left to die. Despite DR Congo being endowed with deposits of minerals estimated in excess of U.S. $24 trillion, the country remains among the poorest in the world, with almost three in four people living on less than $1.90 per day! The west is interested in the mineral resources not in the well-being of Congolese. The UN resolution does not come to solve the cause of the M23 rebellion, but to deal with the symptoms. It is one sided and pushes Kinshasa’s genocide agenda against Congolese Tutsi under the carpet. There was no mention of the hundreds of thousands of Congolese Kinyarwanda speaking people who have spent more than 30 years in refugee camps in Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya and other countries. The valid conclusion is that Congo still belongs to the west while Tshisekedi is simply their untouchable custodian. The UNSC position on the crisis in eastern DR Congo should be an eye opener and reminder that the UN represents a new and modern day Berlin Conference concerned only by protecting their own interests. The writer is a media consultant and former head of Media Development Department at Rwanda Governance Board.

Opinions

Why did the UN Security Council ignore to condemn the existential threat against Congolese Tutsi?