Where is Human Rights Watch (HRW)? Where is Amnesty? Where is the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)? These are recurring questions from many observers who, upon seeing video evidence of massacres committed by Congolese armed forces and their allied militias, as well as mob lynchings in government-controlled areas, are stunned by the willfull blindness of so-called ‘human rights’ organizations. Why are they so focused on reporting allegations of crimes that cannot be verified? Why do they ignore the real crimes and the daily calls for violence against the Congolese Tutsi that appear on our phones? ALSO READ: The story of HRW’s failure over genocide in Rwanda yet to be told Perhaps it’s because their advocacy has little to do with human rights or accountability. It is entirely aimed at shaping Western responses to the crisis, influencing peace processes, and dictating political settlements. Rewriting the causes of conflict To advance their political agenda, human rights groups first set out to: (a) portray Rwanda and the AFC/M23 rebels as the sole cause of conflict and the humanitarian catastrophe in the Congo, (b) deny Kigali and the rebels any justification for their military actions, (c) label M23 as a terrorist group that must be neutralized, and finally, (d) create a rationale for sanctioning Rwanda. Once these objectives were defined, the narrative was firmly established. Accordingly, reading media coverage of the current crisis, one might get the impression that DR Congo was peaceful before M23 resurfaced and chaotic after it re-emerged as a fighting force, in November 2021. But the country was not peaceful. ALSO READ: Why genocide ideology doesn’t dissolve three decades after dispersion of genocidaires By 2020, the country already had 5.2 million internally displaced people, mostly in South Kivu, North Kivu, and Ituri provinces. Another 912,000 Congolese were refugees in neighbouring countries, primarily Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania. Eastern DR Congo was also home to hundreds of armed groups, the most notorious of which included FDLR, ADF, and CODECO. These were the terror groups Tshisekedi seemed determined to neutralize when he declared a state of emergency in Ituri and North Kivu in May 2021. How he later changed course, recruiting them under the Wazalendo label to fight the M23—a group that had not been involved in the security crisis before late 2021 and whose delegation he hosted in Kinshasa for months—remains a mystery few seem willing to investigate. ALSO READ: DR Congo: ADF militia kills 150 civilians in two months Suffice it to say, media coverage portrayed DR Congo’s humanitarian crisis, with millions of internally displaced people, as caused by M23 and its alleged backer, Rwanda. Refugees in neighboring countries and their determination to return home by force of arms if necessary were completely erased from mainstream media analysis. FDLR became a mere footnote in UN and human rights reports and was largely absent from media coverage. In the UN Security Council, “Rwanda-backed M23” became standard language, while the Kinshasa-backed FDLR was never mentioned to describe the rearming of remnants of the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. Since 2022, we have been flooded with reports of alleged war crimes by M23. No credible, independent investigations have ever been conducted, even though the rebels consistently welcomed them. This pattern of unverified, incendiary claims started with alleged massacres in Kishishe (2022), continued with the bombing of refugee camps in Mugunga (2024), and persists today with reports of alleged killings of farmers in Rutshuru (2025). Terms like preliminary investigation and credible witness accounts became convenient phrases intended to mask the lack of serious investigative work behind these accusations. ALSO READ: Scholar tells how Burundi, FDLR connived in DR Congo village massacre Finally, the UN Group of Experts and HRW are advancing unproven claims that Rwanda controls M23 and is therefore legally responsible for war crimes that have yet to be established. These assertions are being used to justify sanctions and even raise the threat of an ICC referral, despite the obvious lack of a sound basis for such actions. Clearly, human rights organizations have become belligerents in the conflict. They have sided with Kinshasa instead of rising above partisan politics and providing a clear, well-investigated picture of what is happening on the ground. The louder they shout, the greater the risk that their bias will be exposed for all to see. Pressuring Washington and Doha The Washington peace deal shattered the narrative of human rights organizations. By adopting Rwanda’s framing of “defensive measures”—to be lifted after the neutralization of the FDLR genocidal group—the deal placed responsibility for the interstate conflict mainly on Kinshasa. Even more importantly, the deal referred the M23 issue, the internal aspect of the crisis, to the Qatari-led mediation in Doha. This made Doha a separate process for a separate dispute: Congolese citizens in rebellion against their government. M23 was no longer treated as a proxy of Rwanda, but as a movement with legitimate grievances, aspirations, and an agenda of its own—matters that had to be negotiated at the table. For many actors, this was unwelcome news. Even if Rwanda were to lift its defensive measures, there was no guarantee the rebels would withdraw from the territory they had captured. Kinshasa’s backers were alarmed at the prospect of a Doha peace deal that would formalize M23’s territorial gains. Something had to be done. Enter HRW and the UNHRC with claims of alleged massacres. Their message to the Trump administration is straightforward: ‘The M23 is not a legitimate actor. It is a terrorist group that must be neutralized and removed from the areas it controls.’ The expectation is that Washington will then pressure Qatari mediators to align with Kinshasa’s demands. And who exactly would “neutralize” the M23? Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Prevot floated the idea of reviving a UN Intervention Brigade with a 2012-style mandate. Congo’s Deputy Prime Minister and minister of defense, Guy Muadiamvita Kabombo, appealed to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) at its 45th ordinary summit to consider another military intervention. Both ideas are doomed. Except for South Africa, perhaps, there is no appetite for war within SADC. Burundi, the only east African country willing to fight on Kinshasa’s behalf, does so largely for its own internal reasons. Even then, it lacks the strength to march north and retake Kivu’s regional capitals, Bukavu and Goma. Still, HRW and UNHRC have another idea to pitch to Washington: force Rwanda, through sanctions and threats of more sanctions, to “order” M23 to withdraw. By their logic, if M23 is under Rwanda’s command, Kigali can simply end the rebellion overnight. This is the realm of fantasy. The real world is another matter. Pushing chaos and a lost cause The problem for human rights groups is threefold. First, the Washington peace deal plans for joint RDF-FARDC military operations to neutralize FDLR, meaning more Rwandan troop deployments, not fewer. This genocidal threat, erased from their narrative, is clearly acknowledged in the peace agreements. Second, evidence of mass atrocities is emerging not from AFC/M23-held areas, but from government-controlled zones. From attacks on Banyamulenge communities in Uvira and Minembwe to massacres of Hema civilians in Ituri, government-allied militias are on rampage, often filming their crimes. No rational actor would accept claims that driving M23 out of liberated territories, leaving a vacuum for these terror groups to fill, could somehow bring peace. Any genuine human rights organization would see this. HRW and UNHCR do not. Third, M23 has consolidated its military position and administrative control. Roads are being built, bridges repaired, police units set up, civil servants trained, and thousands of youth are joining its ranks. Any attempt to dislodge such a formidable force by military means would not only worsen the security situation but also unravel the peace deal that President Trump and his senior advisor, Massad Boulos, worked to bring to fruition. Why would so-called human rights groups advocate for more war? Retired U.S. diplomat Richard Johnson put it best: “HRW’s discourse on Rwanda is a threat to that country and to peace and stability in Central Africa.” Now, the UN must decide whether it wants to be recruited into a political agenda that breeds more chaos and death in DR Congo, or whether it will support the Washington and Doha efforts.
