Ending the death and suffering of unarmed Banyamulenge civilians who were constantly targeted in attacks by the Congolese army coalition in DR Congo’s South Kivu Province was the only reason rebel fighters captured Uvira, a strategic town at the northernmost tip of Lake Tanganyika, earlier this month. In a December 23 exclusive interview in Goma, the capital of North Kivu Province which the rebels captured in January, Bertrand Bisimwa, the AFC/M23 deputy coordinator, told The New Times, that their main objective was: “To create better living conditions for everyone, end the massacres, stop the discrimination, put an end to ethnic hatred, lift the blockade around Minembwe, and allow the people of Minembwe to breathe and live again, since people were dying every day.” ALSO READ: DR Congo crisis: Unarmed Banyamulenge civilians ‘still waking up under bomb explosions’ Minembwe, a group of villages in the highlands of Fizi Territory, in South Kivu, is mainly home to the Banyamulenge community. This is one area where the Burundian army (FDNB) is reported to be deployed, based on a bilateral military cooperation pact signed with Kinshasa in 2023 to fight AFC/M23. ALSO READ: M23 are no terrorists, the Congolese army is – say Bukavu residents Burundian troops are reported to have sparked a distinct humanitarian crisis in the region and other areas of eastern DR Congo. Nturo Village in Masisi, North Kivu—part of a Congolese Tutsi community zone—was attacked and burned in October 2023, reportedly with the complicity of Burundian forces. ALSO READ: What are the motivations of Burundi’s military intervention in South Kivu? In April, AFC/M23 Spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka warned that the Congolese government continued massacring civilians in Minembwe, Uvira, and surrounding areas, using attack drones guided by MONUSCO intelligence. At the time, Moise Nyarugabo, a lawyer from the Banyamulenge community, announced that government forces had “once again sent an attack drone and a Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft over Minembwe.” On December 10, the rebel group announced it captured Uvira, a town which lies near the Burundian border, not more than 30 kilometres by road from Bujumbura, Burundi’s commercial capital. A vast military coalition comprising thousands and thousands of Congolese army forces (FARDC), Burundian troops, Congolese militias known as Wazalendo, genocidal militia from Rwanda (FDLR), and mercenaries from Latin America and Europe, failed to halt the AFC/M23 advance. The FDLR are a Kinshasa-backed terrorist militia founded in mid-2000 by remnants of the masterminds of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. For many years, the militia has been spreading violence and genocide ideology targeting Congolese Tutsi communities in eastern DR Congo. ALSO READ: M23 says will ‘not passively watch’ as DR Congo bombs, massacres Banyamulenge Bisimwa emphasised that, “our primary objective has never been” to capture, control, or manage territories. Whenever government forces and their allies attack them, he explained, the rebels are often compelled to take pre-emptive action to neutralize the threat. He said: “For us, the best way to defend ourselves was to target the source of the threat. That is how, one by one, we found ourselves taking control of territories. Uvira was no different. We were a little farther from Uvira. ALSO READ: 80-year-old Congolese reflects on lifetime of injustice, attacks in South Kivu “We believed the ceasefire signed in Doha would be respected, and we expected the Kinshasa regime to honour it but that was never the case. Every time we reached an agreement, what was decided in Doha never materialized on the ground. The reality on the ground is always different from what is agreed in Doha. This is still the government’s fault, as it has never ceased attacking us.” On October 14, AFC/M23 and Kinshasa signed an agreement that set up a joint team to monitor and verify a permanent ceasefire deal their delegations had agreed on during their first direct peace talks in April, in Doha, Qatar. ALSO READ: Ceasefire tops the agenda as Kinshasa, AFC/M23 resume peace talks The signing of the Ceasefire Oversight and Verification Mechanism marked a step toward enforcing the long-awaited ceasefire, raising hopes for an end to years of armed conflict in eastern DR Congo. On the ground, however, nothing changed. The rebels were attacked, and they counter attacked – always intent on “targeting the source of the threat.” By end of the first week of December, Bisimwa’s forces continued moving southwards, taking small towns such as Kamanyola and Luvungi near the Burundian border, as well as Sange, another town about 30 kilometres north of Uvira. “What happened in Kamanyola followed the same pattern,” Bisimwa said, explaining that while his forces were waiting for the ceasefire to take effect, government coalition forces began attacking and attempted to seize their positions. “We defended ourselves until we reached Uvira,” he said. ‘Policy of persecuting people based on their ethnic background’ Bisimwa pointed out that Uvira was “a far more exceptional case” than any of the other places. “In Uvira, there had been a policy of persecuting people based on their ethnic background and physical features.” In Uvira and surrounding areas, he said, Congolese civilians were abducted, killed, and forced from their homes by armed extremist groups that were well organized and protected by the regime. “The regime now calls these groups patriots. They are referred to as Wazalendo—a Kiswahili term meaning ‘patriots.’ This means that the government of our country turned violent extremists into so-called patriots; people who are supposed to serve as models. When we drove them out of North Kivu, in Bukavu, and other parts of the country, they fled and regrouped to form a politico-military group in Uvira. “They received external support from the Burundian army, which assisted and protected them. They moved beyond Uvira and took the Banyamulenge population hostage, creating a complete blockade around Mulenge. There, they began to kill people gradually on the spot. Within two months, nothing could enter the region, and no one was able to leave. And they also started using drones to massacre people in the region. It was an unbearable situation.” According to Bisimwa, the government coalition’s attack prompted what he described as a push to restore peace in the region, leading the rebels to advance as far as Uvira. Bisimwa said AFC/M23 leaders repeatedly raised concerns with mediators, and they sent more than 16 letters to explain the situation in Uvira, highlight ongoing ceasefire violations, and argue that decisions reached in Doha failed to translate into changes on the ground. “We urged them to reflect on this and to reassess what we were doing. Unfortunately, we never received a single response to the 16 letters we sent. We continue to write, but still receive no reply.” The lack of response led them to conclude that they had to take responsibility and act on their own, he said. What prompted the withdrawal from Uvira? On December 15, five days after the rebels had moved into the town, they announced a unilateral withdrawal from Uvira, as a confidence-building step aimed at advancing the Doha peace process and achieving a lasting solution to the conflict in the east of their country. The Doha peace process is a Qatar-hosted mediation initiative aimed at promoting dialogue and de-escalation between Kinshasa and AFC/M23. In a statement, AFC/M23 said the decision followed “significant progress” under the Doha peace process, including the signing of the Doha Framework Agreement on November 15. Two days later, they began withdrawing their forces from the town. Asked about their quick withdrawal from Uvira, Bisimwa said: “I should clarify that our withdrawal from Uvira was requested by the United States government, directly to AFC/M23, with the justification that it would allow talks in Doha to resume. “We agreed, saying there was no problem, because for us, today, what matters is a political solution, not a military one. However, we also pointed out what we had done in the past and how that turned out,” he said, explaining that past withdrawals were repeatedly exploited by government forces to mount attacks. ALSO READ: Why genocide ideology doesn’t dissolve three decades after dispersion of genocidaires This was especially the case in Walikale, a town about 130 kilometres northwest of Goma. Walikale, which the rebels seized on March 19, has for many years been a stronghold of FDLR. ‘We can no longer make the same mistake’ In line with a unilateral ceasefire declared on February 22, and to support peace initiatives aimed at fostering conditions conducive to political dialogue and addressing the root causes of the conflict in the east of the country, AFC/M23 on March 22 announced that it decided to reposition its forces from the town Walikale. Bisimwa explained: “In Walikale, we made a concession in the name of peace, even though no one asked us to withdraw. But we made that concession, believing it could help create conditions for peace and establish a buffer zone that would prevent fighting while allowing discussions to take place in Doha. “Unfortunately, government troops came, invaded Walikale and started firing at our soldiers. They even killed civilians who they believed had collaborated with us. And our soldiers died because of that. They brought drones that shot at our soldiers while they were retreating. And we said that we can no longer make the same mistake. We told the Americans that what we want now is that, if we retreat, a neutral force must be put in place to protect our population.” What neutral force could secure Uvira? As Bisimwa noted, Uvira and its surrounding areas are home to more than a million people who cannot be left without security or administration. That would create a vacuum; a jungle, he said, adding, “and we all know what happens in a jungle. Congo is already a jungle. We must not make it worse.” “We asked the Americans to provide a neutral force, since the call for withdrawal came from them, in order to ensure that our population would remain safe. For us, it was inconceivable and unacceptable that government troops—given everything they had done in Uvira and its surrounding areas—would return and do the same thing.” As such, they made it clear that a neutral force had to be deployed. Bisimwa acknowledged that there is inevitably a period between their departure from Uvira and the deployment of a neutral force. “This is the period that we must manage. Everyone must manage it.” I asked which entity he now considers neutral to assume responsibility for Uvira, given that the EAC regional force was expelled by Kinshasa and the Southern African regional bloc’s force, SAMIDRC, was not regarded as neutral. ALSO READ: SADC forces in DR Congo sought to 'bring war to Rwanda', says foreign ministry A year after it was deployed to support peace efforts for DR Congo’s conflict-ridden east, the East African Community Regional Force (EACRF) – with troops from Kenya, Burundi, Uganda, and South Sudan – completed its exit from North Kivu, in December 2023. ALSO READ: SADC requests troops’ safe passage from eastern DR Congo through Rwanda Mid this year, the SADC forces – from Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa – which had been part of a Congolese government coalition fighting AFC/M23 rebels, also returned home, through Rwanda. Bisimwa said: “Had the Congolese government not complicated the situation, the EAC force would have at least prevented the resumption of hostilities, allowing dialogue to continue and reach a conclusion. Maybe today, we would have already reached a conclusion if there had been a force like that on the ground, carrying out its mission as it should.” ALSO READ: DR Congo: EAC commander resigns citing personal safety Do you still consider the deployment of an EAC force a practical option, I asked. He said: “I say, yes—why not request for the EAC force? It is a force that is always available and close to us. EAC countries are directly concerned by the crisis, as they are affected by the consequences of the war in the east of our country. “This is where our refugees are—they remain in the camps. They are the ones who host all the Congolese fleeing the country due to poor governance. Therefore, they could easily help us secure Uvira, for example, and allow dialogue to continue—even if Kinshasa opposes the idea of a buffer zone or a neutral force. We believe, however, that for Uvira, this is possible.”
