The fragile calm that followed the withdrawal of M23 forces from the strategic town of Uvira should have marked a step forward for peace in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Instead, it has exposed yet another troubling pattern that continues to undermine every ceasefire attempt in the region. Reports of widespread looting and abuse against civilians in Uvira, allegedly orchestrated by elements of the FARDC-led coalition, underscore the urgent need for the deployment of a truly neutral force. M23’s decision to vacate Uvira should not in any way be looked at as a military defeat but rather a show of political goodwill made in respect of the Doha Peace Process that brings together the rebel group and the Kinshasa government. Such confidence-building measures are essential in any peace effort. But they only work if the vacuum left behind is managed responsibly. What is unfolding instead is a familiar and damaging script: civilians caught in the crossfire of indiscipline, lawlessness, and opportunism by armed actors meant to protect them. This is precisely why a neutral force is no longer a matter of diplomatic convenience but a practical necessity. Fortunately, the AFC/M23 has through its political figurehead, echoed similar sentiments. Monitoring the ceasefire between M23/AFC and government-aligned forces is only half the task. Preventing reprisals, looting, and the collapse of basic order in vacated towns is equally critical. Without such oversight, ceasefires risk becoming tactical pauses rather than steps toward durable peace. The question of neutrality is central. Experience has shown that forces perceived to be aligned, overtly or subtly, with one side of the conflict lose credibility and effectiveness. This concern extends to the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), which, over the years, has faced persistent accusations of bias and selective engagement. While MONUSCO’s mandate is to protect civilians, its record has often failed to inspire confidence among those most affected by the conflict. Calling for a neutral force is not a rejection of international involvement; it is a demand for better, more vigilant engagement. Any deployment must be robust, impartial, and accountable, with a clear mandate to protect civilians and enforce respect for ceasefire commitments by all parties. Peace processes collapse not only because of bad faith at the negotiating table, but also because of impunity on the ground. If Uvira is allowed to descend into chaos after a negotiated withdrawal, it sends a dangerous message to all parties considering compromise. Neutral oversight is therefore essential not just to restore normalcy today, but to keep the promise of peace alive tomorrow.
