The remarks recently made by the spokesperson of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s army shocked many observers around the world. Yet, for those familiar with the country’s political culture and its treatment of certain communities, they were not surprising. What these comments did was to strip away any remaining ambiguity and reveal, in plain sight, the sentiments that have long circulated within powerful circles in Kinshasa. For decades, such views have been whispered, acted upon and embedded in policy. Now the world has heard them spoken openly. In this context, the condemnation issued by the Belgian minister and a handful of other voices deserves recognition. Their response acknowledged that the language used was unacceptable and dangerous. It affirmed a commitment to principles of dignity and restraint that are essential in a region already scarred by conflict. Belgium’s stance matters not only because of its historical ties to the Congo, but because it signals that international partners are paying attention to words that too often precede violence. At the same time, this moment calls for a deeper engagement. The comments did not emerge in a vacuum. They reflect a broader pattern of discrimination that Congolese Tutsi communities in eastern Congo have endured for generations. Political exclusion, questioning of citizenship, and recurring episodes of targeted violence have shaped the lived reality of these populations. This persistent marginalization lies at the heart of the insecurity that has plagued the region. It is in this light that movements such as M23 and those that preceded it must be understood. One need not endorse armed struggle to recognize its origins. Closer to home, Rwanda has for years raised similar concerns over this toxic ideology that has largely been perpetuated in this region by the same people that exterminated over a million people during the Genocide against the Tutsi. These perpetrators have successfully been mainstreamed into the Congolese army and a cocktail of other forces fighting M23. Outfits like M23 did not arise from abstract ambition but from a long history of communities seeking protection, recognition and basic rights in the face of hostility from the state. To dismiss them without grappling with this context is to misunderstand the conflict itself. Belgium, having taken an important first step by condemning the rhetoric, is well placed to go further. It can help foster an honest international conversation that acknowledges why such movements continue to emerge and why military solutions alone have repeatedly failed. Understanding the root causes does not legitimize violence, but it does create space for political solutions grounded in justice. While the condemnation by Belgium is welcome however, it must be matched by a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about discrimination and exclusion in the DR Congo. Only then can there be hope for a durable peace in eastern Congo, one built on equality rather than denial.
